So I tried. I tried to read indybay doc of pre-election polls.

[applegrove]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/preelectoralpolls.pdf

In the second paragraph they claim that 104% of Bush voters voted compared to 100% in 2000. Well that right there is a lie. If you remember that Bush was the poster boy for DUI the week before the 2000 vote you will remember that a percentage of the Christian Right stayed home and were unhappy. A small percentage. But there you go.

This guy assumes that there is something wrong when the percentage of voters is over 100% in the next election. That makes absolutely no sense since the turnout in most AMerican elections is about 65%. The lowest in the free world.

The assumptions so far rival Donald Rumsfield's on troop requirements for the occupation.

I have read two paragraph's and found two glaring errors of logic. I will not read any further.

Thanks for the heads up.

Like I said - I like my information to be of a high quality.

[Wilms]

1. No it doesn't say that.

I know you don't want to read it, but starting at the second paragraph...


A very large number of people voted – 122.6 million. The 'fixed' exit poll says that of these, 43 percent
voted for Bush in 2000, 37 percent voted for Gore in 2000, 3 percent voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and
17 percent did not vote in 2000.

Translating this into numbers this means that of the 122.6 million voters in 2004, 52.6 million voted for
Bush in 2000, 45.4 million voted for Gore in 2000, 3.7 million voted for Nader/Other in 2000, and 20.8
million did not vote in 2000. Really?

In 2000, Bush received only 50,456,169 votes. So 104 percent of Bush's 2000 base returned to polls,
compared to 89 percent of Kerry's base. This is impossible! And this is important, because the exit polls
show that Kerry won new voters, Kerry won voters who did not vote in 2000 (54 to 45), and Kerry
overwhelming won voters who voted for Nader or someone else in 2000 (71 to 21). Also, the exit poll
shows that Bush and Kerry swapped about an equal number of voters in 2004 -- ten percent of Gore voters
went for Bush in 2004 while nine percent of Bush (2000) voters went for Kerry in 2004.

[applegrove]

2. Studies start out with assumptions. When the assumptions are wrong -

the study is.

[babylonsister]

3. Wilms, this is for you:

:loveya: :loveya: You are more capable of explaining this than I am; thanks for doing that!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Clear, coherent and correct. Thank you. nt.

[applegrove]

5. He is assuming the exit polls were correct. They were not. And they

were not correct in areas that had no diebold. And they were incorrect in previous Bush races in Texas.

Don't use exit polls as your base. They can easily be dicked with. All someone would have to do is say to their conservative base "please only park to the right of the poll" if the exit pollsters were 100 feet to the right of the poll.

There are so many ways to dick with exit polls. And then mom comes home, hears on the leaked internet of the results (Kerry won) and dam if she doesn't spend an hour playing with the kids instead of voting - cause she doesn't have a babysitter or a car.

You have a problem of voters (35% to be exact) of not showing up to vote.

Fix that! Ban exit pollsters since they are in no way a scientific sample of anything. For so many reasons.

You don't base research on faulty & unscientific data.

Thank you for pointing out "REASON NUMBER 3" why this document is wrong. And I didn't have to read very far at all.

Exit polls are not scientifically or statistically an accurate measure of anything.

[applegrove]

6. This study is based on the false notion that exit polls are scientific

and not vulnerable to a myriad of games or wrong sampling.

Exit polls 'being off' in Bush elections have been going on since Texas. Before Diebold. And exit polls were off in races that had no diebold machines.

They use the lack of information on diebold machines to smash our big democratic tent.

Yes we need election transparency. Yes. We need to stick together and not follow one idea or another until we have adult and exacting proof.

We do not.