Death to NATO

1551 readers

67 users here now

For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.

Rules:

Follow Site Rules
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Shpilkin method, anyone with knowledge in statistics? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So I've stumbled across this thing called Shpilkin method, a statistical model that pretends to quantity electoral fraud. I haven't found the precise model because all I get is media talking about it, there isn't even a Wikipedia article for this. Upon primary investigation I found multiple sketchy things.

It seems that the model is based on analysing voter turnout variation, however turnout is known to be affected by other factors such as people only caring about the biggest election
I haven't seen the model applied an compared to any other country than Russia, what if it would detect similar voter fraud in the "democratic west"?
The media covering this is really bad, the top results are radio free europe and some neolib pro nato french news outlet.
Mr Shpilkin apparently got rewards from some irrelevant "Liberal Front" and also got put on the list of foreign interference personalities by Russia

All I know about statistics is that you can make numbers say whatever you want. Is there anyone with education in the field that could evaluate how valid this whole thing is?

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I used a t-test to compare the election results for Putin to his approval ratings and found no significant difference, although a sample size of only 5 probably isn't very good for making conclusions.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is there anyone with education in the field that could evaluate how valid this whole thing is?

It's pretty hard to evaluate something when we have barely anything to evaluate.

It seems that the model is based on analysing voter turnout variation

This is too vague a statement, and in lieu of any kind of scientific article describing how the method actually works, or heck even a Wikipedia article, i don't think you're going to get much of an answer to this question other than a shrug and a "it's probably bullshit".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Also happy cake day 🎉

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah I guess I half expected someone would know how to get some literature about it, but if a search can't find this you can be pretty sure it's some "trust me bro it's The Math©"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Found this on the schmuck's wilson center bio. I don't speak academic statistics, though, so I can't comment on the details of the methods.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Just skimming the paper, the core of the argument there is:

Assume there was substantial election fraud in Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections (b/c "only" that could explain the protests that occurred shortly after).
Assume there was no substantial election fraud in Russia's presidential elections just 3 months later (b/c there apparently was higher scrutiny of these elections).
Given 1 and 2, there may be statistically detectable differences between the two elections (under a whole bunch of other assumptions that may or may not be justified), and these can only be explained by election fraud.

So that's it. If you assume what you need to prove, then whatever you find is statistical proof!