Democratic Voting Expert Tells Me RFK is "Simply Wrong"

So in researching the last journal entry about RFK Jr.'s article about Ohio, I e-mailed Jasjeet S. Sekhon, associate professor at UC Berkeley, and one of the members of the Ohio Election Task Force and researchers for the DNC report about the 2004 elections.

I asked him, in the context of what RFK Jr. wrote, about the statistical proof that there was causation, not mere correlation, regarding the low voter turnout where machine/voter ratio was low.

He didn't answer that question directly, pointing me to the paper I quoted in the last entry, and saying "sometimes it is possible to answer if one brings enough data and cleverness to the question." He asserted the butterfly ballot did cause Gore to lose in 2000: I'm skeptical, but I don't have the inclination right now to dig in, so I'll just link to the paper. Anyway, as mentioned before, I think the aforementioned paper failed to even claim proof of causation.

However, that's all a minor point, since, as Sekhon says repeatedly, "voting allocation issues were not large enough to change the outcome."

Regarding RFK Jr., though, he stated what I've been saying, that most on the left think I'm all wet about. Judge for yourself what this Democratic expert who thinks Gore won in 2000 has to say about RFK Jr., and claims that Kerry won in 2004:

RFK's article is misconceiving, socially damaging and simply wrong---much like his previous one on autism and vaccines. RFK selectively cites the DNC report. More voters supported Bush in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry. There is no scientific evidence that they did not. There were some irregularities (such as the allocation of voting machines), but they were not large enough to change the outcome. Bush won in 2004; Democrats have to admit that he really did if they are to fix their electoral problems much like how an alcoholic first has to admit that s/he has a problem.

Ouch.