|
On November 21 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 10:05 Nebuchad wrote:Is this a new document or is it the one they had already? I believe this is the only one created. I just hadn't posted it before and when I came across it on NPR I thought others might be interested. But this is the one that Morales claims is fake and the rest of the Bolivians partys (left of center all the way to the far right) say is the truth.
Have you read it? It doesn't provide evidence for its conclusions.
|
|
|
On November 21 2019 11:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 11:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 21 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 21 2019 10:05 Nebuchad wrote:Is this a new document or is it the one they had already? I believe this is the only one created. I just hadn't posted it before and when I came across it on NPR I thought others might be interested. But this is the one that Morales claims is fake and the rest of the Bolivians partys (left of center all the way to the far right) say is the truth. Have you read it? Yes I have, and I didn’t want to be a jerk to you despite you constantly being one to me. But since you continue to be one you should really have read this and known the actual numbers before you started claiming that he was legitimately elected. Now I’m sure confirmation bias will continue to power your beliefs but at least you will hopefully know what you are talking about. That way when you arena condescending jerk to me you won’t be embarrassing yourself by not knowing even the most basic of details.
Good! Then we both read this report, as we should have.
I also read the report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11.pdf?v=3
This thread by Kevin Cashman was also helpful, so I read it:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1193703918624108544.html
I looked up what CEPR is about and what OAS is about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research
I also watched a few Youtube videos by BadEmpanada and Vaush, and also one by David Pakman that takes the opposing view 
I'm sure you looked up all of those too btw, so thanks for helping me get up to speed.
Remember, I don't need to show that it was obviously not election fraud to sustain my position. All I need is to show that it isn't obvious that it was. Because the dude that got kicked out in a military coup agreed to new elections, with OAS oversight, before he was kicked out
|
Can't help but mention the OAS report didn't even use the word/s "fraud" or "election fraud" and showed a much lower rate of voting irregularities/complaints than US elections too....
|
On November 21 2019 13:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 11:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 21 2019 11:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 21 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 21 2019 10:05 Nebuchad wrote:Is this a new document or is it the one they had already? I believe this is the only one created. I just hadn't posted it before and when I came across it on NPR I thought others might be interested. But this is the one that Morales claims is fake and the rest of the Bolivians partys (left of center all the way to the far right) say is the truth. Have you read it? Yes I have, and I didn’t want to be a jerk to you despite you constantly being one to me. But since you continue to be one you should really have read this and known the actual numbers before you started claiming that he was legitimately elected. Now I’m sure confirmation bias will continue to power your beliefs but at least you will hopefully know what you are talking about. That way when you arena condescending jerk to me you won’t be embarrassing yourself by not knowing even the most basic of details. Good! Then we both read this report, as we should have. I also read the report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11.pdf?v=3This thread by Kevin Cashman was also helpful, so I read it: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1193703918624108544.htmlI looked up what CEPR is about and what OAS is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_ResearchI also watched a few Youtube videos by BadEmpanada and Vaush, and also one by David Pakman that takes the opposing view I'm sure you looked up all of those too btw, so thanks for helping me get up to speed. Remember, I don't need to show that it was obviously not election fraud to sustain my position. All I need is to show that it isn't obvious that it was. Because the dude that got kicked out in a military coup agreed to new elections, with OAS oversight, before he was kicked out
I think people are misrepresenting what the CEPR study is. The study presents a mathematical model that shows that Morales could have won with a 10 percent margin without fraud. The study argues that the final results are somehow consistent with previous elections results. This is important, but there are some weak points in their studies. Their model is off by 0.4%, but more importantly there is not a single confidence interval within the study, which is really weird in my opinion.
The OAS report does not use the word, or show there was fraud (which imply coordinated actions and political motivations). It instead identify irregularities, defect tallys and different mechanisms that could have been abused in the Bolivian electoral systems. It also shows concerning elements, including irregularities in tallys submitted during the last days, informatic breaches and random redirection to external server, over representation of votes from Argentina compared to electoral lists etc.
The two studies don’t have the same scope, and they don’t necessarily contradict each other. Saying the CEPR shows that there was no fraud is false. And saying that Morales did not commit fraud because he didn’t need it is a fallacious argument (especially if you consider the uncertainty of the process, and the stakes for Morales. ).
I personally think that the fraud hypothesis is very likely. There is an excellent twitter thread by Carwil Bjork James (a scholar based in Bolivia) on the different elements pointing in that direction (including confessions of the previous director of electoral court). I am not going to repeat these argument : https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1194371628014043136.html
If you have any youtube videos contradicting these different elements I would be very happy to have a look at them.
|
Thank you for the source, I'll follow him
|
|
|
On November 21 2019 11:01 Malongo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 21 2019 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Though unlikely to succeed, legislators in Chile have filed a motion for impeachment proceedings. The complaint is "due to the grave, repeated, generalised and systematic violations of the fundamental rights of people carried out by agents of the state in the past month," Antofagasta, Chile - Opposition legislators in Chile formally presented a motion Tuesday to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Sebastian Pinera.
The "constitutional accusation" is rooted in human rights violations allegedly committed during the ongoing month-long crisis. Nationwide protests against inequality and injustice continue, as do police crackdowns. www.aljazeera.com Signed by 11 out of 155 people in the house parliament. Extreme left circus. Funny how on the streets the amount of people that actually want Piñera out is way over that 11/155. You call it left circus, but the situation in Chile is way beyond left and right. People is tired of the facade: everyone that is not a right wing supporter is called inmediatly a leftist (like you did on that other guy). It is a pretty old technique used by the right to nullify and create fear: if I don´t support your economics and political view you call me a communist. Stop pretending there is only black and white and maybe you *could* understand why people attack the police like they did on that video you posted. Those are not left party supporters. That is people tired of being laugh in their faces when police has enough money to spend on Dodge Chargers and shny new toys but there is not enough money to spend in health or education.
No, the people on the video I posted are just criminals and not being happy with how the government spends money is no excuse on attempted murder; I am not happy with the government budget either. That said, if you support atacking people by simply being part of a law and order institution, I have no sympathy for you.
And if you are engaging in such acts, I hope you get detained and spend time in prison as you should.
I've said multiple times in this climate of violence tons of police officers will over step their boundaries and do bad stuff, but that doesn't mean you get to murder them or that the laws of the country become void.
People need to stop looting, destroy public and private property, and stop atacking the police; moreover, if you want to harm a police officer for wrong doing the legal way is a lot more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
|
On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
The thing that makes this easy for me to understand is that they have to explain this every election in the US when they put a graphic up with a candidate up by 10+% and the race isn't called because of how significantly support can fluctuate from place to place. In something like 60+ precincts Mitt Romney got 0 votes for example. Not just 0%, but 0 votes.
|
On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
I wrote the following:
"The study presents a mathematical model that shows that Morales could have won with a 10 percent margin without fraud. The study argues that the final results are somehow consistent with previous elections results. This is important, but there are some weak points in their studies. Their model is off by 0.4%, but more importantly there is not a single confidence interval within the study, which is really weird in my opinion."
with emphasis on could.
Nobody disputes the fact that the Morales votes are usually higher in rural areas, nor that Morales was significantly ahead already. People are suspicious because of the convenient shutdown of the electoral platform. The surge in Morales votes when final results were published appeared weird because they just barely put him 10% ahead. Other elements were discussed on social media and in the Bolivian press the days after the election (overly high participation rates in some rural areas, opposition ballots found in trash near voting stations). These are the elements that triggered the demonstrations in Bolivia weeks before Morales resigned.
Now what the CEPR did in their study to take the vote count before the platform was shut down (85% or something of the votes accounted), simulate a likely voting pattern in rural area based on previous results and then compare their model with the final results to see if Morales could have won the election with the >10% threshold. It is a purely statistical and mathematical exercise and should be taken as such.
If you say that the CEPR study shows that there was no fraud there are the following problems with your reasoning.
1) The models are still off by 0.4% compared to the final results (which indicate a quite large maring of errrors).
2) Results are presented without any confidence interval, which is a major scientific flaw imo. Especially if you present results that are extremely close to the 10% threshold.
3) And finally, (where you can have "both are sort of right"), saying that Morales would have won anyway does not mean that there was no fraud. To give you a provocative analogy it is like saying a rich banker would never steal money because he doesn't need it.
In my opinion there was a huge incentive for MAS to gain the elections without a run-off. And the electoral authorities and voting infrastructures seem compromised as indicated by the tweeter feed I linked above.
|
|
|
It makes sense for him to come back. In vacating every single position in the chain of succession and not attending parlimentary sessions, Evo and MAS's goal was to prevent anyone from stepping up to lead, probably hoping that this would mobilize his base to take back control.
With Anez going through with it anyway and declaring herself president (with as much legitimacy as anyone can claim, remembering that everyone else resigned) and popular support for Morales being nowhere enough to go against pupolar anti-Morales support, the jig is up.
|
On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report.
“Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.”
The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself.
|
On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself.
That's true, yeah. Although the OAS report was mainly focused on that specific claim and it's the one claim that made it to international media initially, it's not surprising that this would be targeted.
|
On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself.
I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is).
Pretty sure most reports are that it was the opposition that burned downed several election buildings/ballots and the irregularities in percentages and reporting happen in the US too.
The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power.
|
|
|
On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power.
Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
