Republican friend debunks Exit Polls - He says - What would you say?

[BamaBecky]

I read the other Exit poll thread question, but I still wonder what you would say to somebody who says this: I sent the Univ. of Ill study.....
Univ. of Illinois studies US 11/2/04 Exit Polls = Declares 2004 ELECTION STOLEN

Institute of Government and Public Affairs
Executive Summary:

*There is a substantial discrepancy -- well outside the margin of error and outcome determinative -- between the national exit poll and the popular vote count.

*Analysis shows that the discrepancy cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or random error.

*Evidence does not support hypotheses that the discrepancy was produced by problems with the exit poll.

*Widespread breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count are the most likely explanations for the discrepancy.

*In an accurate count of a free and fair election, the strong likelihood is that Kerry would have been the winner of the popular vote.

Conclusion

In light of the history of exit polling and the particular care that was taken to achieve an unprecedented degree of accuracy in the exit polls for Election 2004, there is little to suggest significant flaws in the design or administration of the official exit polls.

Until supportive evidence can be presented for any hypothesis to the contrary, it must be concluded that the exit polls, including the national mega-sample within its ±1.1% margin of error, present us with an accurate measure of the intent of the voters in the
presidential election of 2004.

According to this measure, an honest and fair voting process would have been more likely than not--at least 95% likely, in fact--to have determined John Kerry to be the national popular vote winner of Election 2004

http://spiral-stairs.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/30/223723/91




My Republican friend replied:

"Whoever wrote the article above is delusional. To try to compare the raw vote to exit polls is not a valid exercise. For one thing, exit polls were originally designed to determine why voters voted a certain way or who (race, sex, etc.) was voting for the candidates. Exit Polls were never designed to indicate who was winning or going to win. There were at 3 major reasons why the exit polls were misleading: (1) they were taken primarily in metropolitan areas, where Democrats are traditionally favored, (2) the ratio of women to men was higher than the voting population (again, women favored Kerry) and (3) exit polls are not a scientific sampling, etc. I know there are many bloggers saying otherwise, but they are trying to determine the raw vote from exit polls - I don't believe that is possible."

What would you say to him? I was really surprised at his response.

:shrug: Thanks for the help!

[papau]

1. tell him he knows little about statistics and less about exit polls

(1) they were taken primarily in metropolitan areas, where Democrats are traditionally favored,

WRONG


(2) the ratio of women to men was higher than the voting population (again, women favored Kerry)

WRONG AS TO LIKELY VOTER POPULATION

(3) exit polls are not a scientific sampling, etc.

WRONG AGAIN

[Lurker321]

3. As TIA has finally admitted

in this thread and followups: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x279921#280216

raw exit poll data has been consistantly skewed towards Democratic candidates for the last 16 years at least, in some cases a lot more than in 2004. Thus, the 2004 results are just a continuation of the trend. Unless you, as TIA does, think that there has been massive fraud on the level of 5-6 million votes in every presidential election starting with the 1988 one, you have to admit that the 2004 numbers are not out of the oridinary.

[DELUSIONAL]

5. You are twisting what TIA has written

Here is how he responded to your claim:

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-12-05 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Both. They are accurate. But a combination of spoilage AND fraud
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 09:12 PM by TruthIsAll


in the VOTE COUNTING causes the discrepancies.

And the Repukes know that the spoilage occurs predominantly in minority precincts. So they have a great head start. Read Palast.

Thought you got me?

Once again, YOU are the one who inadvertantly confirmed that throufg a conbination of fraud and spoilage, vote tallies deviate to the Repukes.

Thank you for the talking point.

[Lurker321]

9. I asked him which of the theories on why raw exit polls

have been consistently wrong in every presidential election since 1988 he goes by:

1. massive fraud
2. systemic error in the exit polls

His answer was: "Both". The expanded answer claims that "combination of spoilage and fraud" has caused "red shifts" of up to 8% in every election since 1988 in Republicans favor.

Do you agree with TIA that every election since 1988 until now was massively skewed by Republicans with a "combination of spoilage and fraud"?

[papau]

13. The Stats do not lie - but liars try to explain away the stats

:-)

somebody important must have said that ......


:toast:

:-)

[rdmccur]

59. Repukes are good at twisting

[euler]

75. Yes, that is the way he responds....

...but he is making a claim with no argument. He may be right, but it's not right simply because he says it is.

[papau]

7. Skewed toward Dem can and should be interpreted as more GOP cheating

and no it is not on the level of 6 million votes -

This one was the high point - I'd estimate it at 3 million - split between fake absentee, spoilage, removed voting machines from Dem areas, and perhaps 2 of the 3 million from switched votes in the paperless electronic world and in the punch card subsitution world.

I saw the GOP world first hand in 1960 - and again in 84 - it has not changed.

Stats really are the ONLY way you tell of massive fraud.

And I'm sorry for your desire to believe there was no massive fraud, but the stats say otherwise.

I do not know of TIA's stat training - but what I've seen appears to be excellent work.

And I've got 40 years in the business with appropiate paper for the resume.

Care to share the background of those that feel exit polls are getting worse and worse in the US because we just do not do a good job?

[Lurker321]

11. What do you mean it was not on the level of 6 million votes?

The raw exit polls differed from actual results in 1988 by more than 8%. What was the total vote in 1988 - 50 million? 8% of 50 million is 4 million votes. So - was there massive fraud of 4 million votes in 1988 or do you think there may be a possibility that the raw exit poll data did not accurately reflect the actual election?

[papau]

14. The MOE of an exit poll allows for a million vote swing -your

88 number reflects a 2 million swing - a million more than expected.

[Lurker321]

23. Ok - you made me go and look up the numbers

1988 turnout in Presidential Election: 91,594,693 votes

8% of that is 7.3M votes. Subtract 2M to account for MOE of the exit poll - you get 5.3M votes. So - you think there was fraud to the tune of 5.3M votes in 1988 elections?

[papau]

30. nope - I do not - but do share your links

:-)

only the GOP try to live by assertion alone.

[Lurker321]

33. here you go

for past election turnouts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election#Voter_turnout

the other links about the raw exit polls in previous US elections I posted above.

[papau]

60. Sorry - but you have not posted a link to exit polls that were in error

Presidential Candidate Electoral Vote Popular Vote Pct Party Running Mate
George H. W. Bush of Texas (W) 426 48,882,808 53.4% Republican James D. Quayle III of Indiana
Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts 111 41,807,430 45.6% Democrat ftp://ropercenter.uconn.edu/United_States/Cbsnyt/USCBSNYT1988-NATELEC/version2/cbsnyt1988.PDF is a copy of the actual Q&A in 1988

The only 8% exit poll error in 1988 was the Gallup GOP NH primary.

Please post a link to the exit poll that you claim was in error

[Lurker321]

62. My numbers came from

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

Four previous elections' exit polls:

1988: Dukakis, 50.3 Bush, 49.7       wrong by: 8.3%
1992: Clinton, 46   Bush, 33.2       wrong by: 7.2%
1996: Clinton, 52.2 Dole, 37.5       wrong by: 6.2% 
2000: Gore,    48.5 Bush, 46.2       wrong by: 1.8%

Note: this refers to raw exit poll data. Since you did not give the link to the actual data that went into the numbers you posted above, I presume that what you posted was the adjusted exit poll results. If you look at 2004 adjusted exit poll results, they will also match pretty closely the official election results.

[papau]

64. Unwieghted raw data proves nothing - learn a bit of sampling theory

what I posted was the 12:30 am final exit poll data as produced by the model - meaning it was adjusted exit poll results in terms of the vocabulary you are using.

The model itself was then changed so as to get a best fit, which is always done - but in this case the changes are just too large to be accepted.

[Lurker321]

66. The data that TIA and all the other "exit polls are always accurate"

people are using in their calculations is raw exit poll data from 2004. "Unweighted raw data proves nothing" is exactly correct. What you have to look at is final adjusted exit poll data - but that would ruin the "exit polls prove there was fraud" argument. You understand it. I understand it. Not everybody does. That's what I posted about.

[papau]

67. Well we agree as to the value of "Unweighted raw data proves nothing"

But TIA is not posting raw data - the every 10th voter results.

He is posting the wieghted results where the wieghting is based on the model that was designed for the election.

The FINAL numbers as you know get the best fit model - which in this case turns out to very difficult to describe in words!

Indeed the hispanic private exit polls showed an unchanged from 2000 30% Bush vote. But the best fit model requires 44% going to Bush.

Something does not smell right - perhaps?

peace - and good night!

:toast:

:-)

[Lurker321]

68. First of all, we have no idea which data TIA is using -

since no one knows what the raw data or others look like, since Mitofsky has not released it yet. From what I understood, he is using raw data that was weighted but not fully adjusted yet. The weighting accounts for it being a little more accurate than the 8% glaring discrepancy in the numbers I posted before.

Basically, since the raw numbers or the model, or the precincts breakdown or anything else really was not released by Mitofsky, any analysis of the data is premature and very likely to be wrong. Mitofsky promised to release the data (I think with the Roper center) within 3 months of the elections - so there are a couple of weeks to go. You and I know that simple weighting does not make the data accurate, the adjustments that need to be made to make it truly accurate are complex, have to take into account a slew of factors, and are more of an art than a science.

I am waiting for the raw data numbers to be released. It will be interesting to check the per-precinct raw data collected with the precincts' official election results, for example. Those should match fairly closely, within the sample MOE, I would presume, if the sampling in those precincts was truly random. No adjustments necessary.

[papau]

87. I agree :-)

:-)

[RaulVB]

20. Ooops!...the naysayers found a professional statistician...

Thanks for posting in this forum.

[eridani]

84. By sheerest coincidence--

--those 16 years were when computerized vote tabulation started to get popular.

[Lurker321]

90. When do you think exit polls were

started?

[Mistwell]

93. Not in 1988

There were extremely few electronic polling stations in 1988 (if ANY), and yet that year shows one of the greatest deviations from the exit poll data. I'm sorry, but that claim just doesn't fly.

Someone has got to actually respond to this trend to favor Democrats in early unadjusted exit poll data in a logical manner. Otherwise, all prior calculations done on this exit poll are seriously flawed in a basic assumption - that the poll is set to come out as roughly 50/50 on deviations for the two major candidates from the exit poll. The empirical data shows it does NOT seem to be set to 50/50.

[eridani]

106. Not polling stations, but electronic tabulators n/t

[Mistwell]

109. Are you serious?

Are you seriously implying a massive, grand conspiracy that reaches back 16 years to control of electronic tabulators, which nobody has EVER admitted to or gossiped about, over thousands of polling stations, all to the effect that they still lost 2 of four elections and essentially tied in one of the remaining 2? You gotta be kidding me. Certainly you can see how truly silly that is.

[eridani]

110. Massive and/or grand isn't necessary to achieve the goal

Can't find the Shouptronic thread, as the Search function won't work, but Sununu used them to rig the New Hampshire primary for Poppy Bush in 1988.

[Mistwell]

121. Dude...it has to be massive

In order to rig the 1988 election by 8%, you have to have a MASSIVE conspiracy. The counting machines are individually calibrated for each county, sometimes each city, to account for different things being on the ballot. They've always been done by a mixed group from both parties. And it wasn't a compter capable of a mass switch from some home office...each one would have had to have been changed at the local level to do it. Not to mention a huge number of machines were still hand conted in 1988.

Sorry, it had to be a MASSIVE conspiracy...and all to no avail for the two elections against Clinton. It's just plain silly to assume that is the most logical explination for the exit poll to actual vote count deviation. The more logical explanation is that unweighted exit polls simply skew Democratic, like the guy who invented the poll itself (who is himself a lifelong Democrat) says they do, and like ALL empirical evidence says they do.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

95. There is nothing constructive in picking on TIA

He's hard to get along with because he's onto something upsetting. Sometimes it makes him strident and othertimes a little to accepting of evidence. This doesn't reduce the importance of the fact that he is actually onto something, though.

[TruthIsAll]

103. You twisted, I'll SHOUT. I admitted nothing. And you know it.

.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

2. ask him why Ukraine's exit polls were believable but ours our not

ask him why Bush's approval rating was 48% immediately before the election, magically jumped to 51% just for election day when the exit polls showed 48%, and now -presto- the polls have his approval rating post-election at 48%

[Lurker321]

4. Ukrainian polls

here is the data for the re-vote

There were three exit polls

(link: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/10499250.htm )

1.  58.1%  to   38.4%   MOE=2
2.  56.5%  to   41.3%   no MOE given
3.  56%    to   41%     MOE=2

Official results: http://tinyurl.com/3ufxp

    51.99% to   44.2%    

As you see, all three exit polls were wrong, way outside of margin of error.

Edit: corrected link

[RaulVB]

10. "Washington Monthly"

Only link that the naysayers can ever find.

I will request that you stop in your efforts.

Your failure is evident.

Regards.

[Lurker321]

12. Where in the post that you responded to

was there a link to "Washington Monthly"?

[RaulVB]

16. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

* John McEnroe.

here is the data for the re-vote

There were three exit polls

(link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20... )

- Grow up...

[Lurker321]

17. Accidentally gave the wrong link

corrected the post. The numbers there have nothing to do with Washington Monthly.

[RaulVB]

18. That speaks a lot about your "credentials"!

Game over, "pal"

G'day...

[Skittles]

15. riiiiiiiiight

nice try. Do some more research and while you're at it, answer the second question. Man, you spend a lot of time defending our piece of shit voting processes.

[Lurker321]

19. Are you disputing the numbers I gave?

If not, are you disputing the fact that the exit polls in Ukraine were wrong?

Seriously - if the real numbers do not fit your preconceptions, is the only response you can come up with "riiiiiiiight"?

[Skittles]

27. not answering my question

nt

[Lurker321]

29. just as you're not addressing my point

on the inaccuracy of Ukrainian exit polls.

I have no idea about the polls on approval ratings, and I do not see how they correlate to the elections. As you're well aware, lots of people vote for people they do not actually approve of - it's called "hold your nose and vote" or "the lesser of two evils" etc etc. Did you compare "approval ratings" of Bush vs Kerry in the pre-election polls?

[Skittles]

31. LOL, whatever

how about a different subject - like, where the heck WERE those WMDs? BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

[Lurker321]

37. From what I understand

there are no WMDs in Iraq. None were found after extensive search. How is this relevant to the subject of the original post?

[Skittles]

39. wanted to see if you were a one-trick pony

nt

[davidgmills]

133. There were reports of quite a bit of fraud

during the exit polling of Ukraine.

No reports of fraud in the exit polling here though.

I keep asking the question over and over and over. How accurate are the tabulations? What is their MOE?

Freeman calls the polls skewed in favor of the Democrats not democratic bias but democratic undervotes.

The "wrongs" of past exit polls may be evidence of past lost undervotes. Lots of evidence to conclude that way.

If you think that actual counts are accurate, then get ready to defend the census. Most experts say the last census was off by six million or more and there was little financial incentive to get the numbers wrong. I'd say that spending one billion on this last election indicates that the financial stakes were pretty darn high.

[Karenca]

32. Can you give me the REAL

reason you post here, trying so, soo hard to delegitimize our efforts?...
When you know why this forum is here...while we are trying to uncover the regime's criminal activities, why, oh please DO tell us why, you are putting so much effort trying to disrupt our every finding??
Now, try and be honest please.
:think:

[New Earth]

34. screenname should say it all

:hi:

[RaulVB]

35. Ha, ha...Faye! (n/t)

[Karenca]

38. Hi Faye!

:hi:

BTW, thanks for all you contribute.
I wish I was so involved when I was your age.

[Lurker321]

36. The REAL reason:

I don't like people posting misinformation. Note: not opinions, but pure misinformation, such as "Ukrainian exit polls were accurate" or "US raw exit polls have always predicted the election results correctly before 2000". When I see that, I try to correct it. Why do you object to that? Would you prefer that the misinformation be perpetuated?

[Skittles]

40. there's lots of evidence to show the election was stolen

do you disagree with that?

[Lurker321]

44. there were a lot of problems with this election

the long lines, the provisional ballot confusion, the suspicions about DREs etc etc. There is no hard evidence that it was "stolen". Exit polls, especially raw exit polls, are not convincing evidence for the reasons that I posted.

[Skittles]

46. actually, there is plenty of hard evidence

for both elections 2000 and 2004.

[Karenca]

42. That's so funny that you try to correct that....

"'US raw exit polls have always predicted the election results correctly before 2000". When I see that, I try to correct it.'"

It's been a known fact, until you came along and decided to rewrite history for us.
Thanks for enlightening us. I guess we, and the rest of the country owe you a huge debt of gratitude for setting the record straight.

[RaulVB]

43. Ha, ha...Karen! (n/t)

[Lurker321]

45. It may have been a "known fact" to you -

but it is still wrong. I showed you it's wrong. I showed you hard numbers that prove that your "known fact" is wrong. Do you dispute the numbers? Show yours.

[Karenca]

47. You saw ours already ........... over and over again....

117 negative posts, all trying to debunk all the hard work we have done.
and it's not even been 4 days since you joined ...

Do you really believe your "'facts" are going to change our minds? :boring:

[Lurker321]

51. Well, yes, I am kinda hoping that presentation of

numbers that contradict one's beliefs, and that cannot be disputed as fake numbers, could possibly change one's mind about the exit polls accuracy. That's a mark of an open mind - being able to accept you're mistaken if faced with proof that you're mistaken.

Maybe I am a bit idealistic in this, but I do believe that rational people, when presented with indisputable evidence to the contrary (such as the numbers that show that raw exit polls were off by 8% from actual election results in 1988) would actually stop believing that raw exit polls were always accurate.

For some reason you do not try to dispute the numbers I showed you. Do you think they are wrong?

[davidgmills]

136. Talk about stupid assumptions..

Why do you assume that when the exit polls were off by 8% it was the polls which were wrong? Why not start with the assumption that the polls were "right" and the tabulation was wrong? That makes a lot more sense.

Counting 100 million anything is "hard work," and fraught with complications after complications.

Talk about dumb assumptions. Assume that the really difficult thing to do is highly accurate and the much easier thing to do is wrong.

How accurate was the 2000 census count? Let's start there.

[New Earth]

48. maybe i need to copy & paste, but: you are wasting your time

the exit poll discrepancy is not the only thing that may imply fraud



it's the 'discrepancies' and 'irregularities' in the vote count, the machine tabulation, the ratio of more votes than voters, voter suppression, not supplying enough voting machines in certain areas, etc.

All these people trying to explain how the exit polls could be wrong are really not going to change anyone's mind that there was fraud. If that is anyone's intention, they are simply wasting their time.

[Lurker321]

53. of course there is other evidence,

so why do you and others keep bring up the supposed accuracy of exit polls, when it is plainly not true?

No one is trying to change your mind that "there was fraud". What I keep trying to do is correct the msinformation about exit polls. For some reason you (and others) take these corrections personally. Why you would prefer that this misinformation be perpetuated is beyond me.

[zapped 1]

151. a test for you

Can you tell me who won Florida and the election in 2000?
Can you then support your answer with the facts?

[davidgmills]

158. Re: Keep trying to correct misinformation about exit polls

You can't correct misinformation about exit polls until you prove that the actual count was correct.

Suppose the actual count was off by 5% and the exit poll off by 3% the other direction. Spread of eight. Or more likely 5.5 and 2.5.

[papau]

61. you have yet to post a link to the exit poll data you say was wrong

in 88, 92, 96

Why not?

[Lurker321]

63. I did now - and do you expect that your posts will be answered

within seconds?

[papau]

65. Good point - and it is time for bed! :-) But the point as to exit poll

results for 88 , 92, 96 still is open.

raw data (which is every 10th voter at selected precincts) does little for anyone since we are trying to do a stratified sample.

and as your link says "...ultra-raw? If so then they are garbage. Just like the figures that showed Dukakis beating Bush"

[Time for change]

127. And here's the data from the 04 Presidential race

Mitofski-Edison exit poll: Kerry by 2.6% (N>13,000, MOE=0.4%)
Official vote tally: Bush by 2.8%
Discrepancy=5.4%
Probablility of discrepancy occurring by chance:Almost 1 million to 1

Not as obvious as in the Ukraine, but very impressive nevertheless.

[Danish Reporter]

76. Senate resolution concerning Ukraine based in part on exit polls

Aditionally information:

Here's the december 8. 04 senate resolution by Smith, Biden, Stabenow and Corzine concerning the Ukraine election. The resolution condemning the election is in part based on exit polls.

SENATE RESOLUTION 485--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NOVEMBER 21, 2004, PRESIDENTIAL RUNOFF ELECTION IN UKRAINE

(snip)

Whereas the Ukrainian Central Election Commission reported that Mr. Yanukovych won 49.42 percent of the vote and Mr. Yushchenko won 46.7 percent of the vote in the runoff election, despite the fact that several exit polls indicated that Mr. Yushchenko secured significantly more votes than Mr. Yanukovych;

(snip)

Links:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S08DE4-0087:

pdf: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S12070&position=all

[BamaBecky]

82. I will......thanks

:hi:

[New Earth]

6. whether the exit polls were wrong or right

doesn't take away from the fact of what happened in a lot of states, aside from the voter suppression, the machine malfunctions and fraud.

oh sorry, irregularities :eyes:

so really, trying to defend OR 'debunk' the exit polls doesn't change anything. :hi:

[BamaBecky]

83. He said "this" about......"all that"........as Seinfeld would say

WOW...I'm thrilled that you want to discuss this Jerry. I'm going to take my time and go over each and every question that you raised...to the best of my ability. This IS THE ONLY WAY we can fix this country is to talk with each other about these issues. Thanks! for your questions and your interest - You are a good American! Would you be interested in helping us educate other Americans and advocating for voter verified paper ballots?

1. >>Becky, if any of the charges below are true, then "proof" needs to be provided and those responsible should be charged.<<
There are several groups investigating the charges, most notably the House Judiciary Committee. Lawsuites have been filed in several states.
There are serious allegations in two lawsuits pending in Ohio that debate
the constitutionality of the denial of provisional ballots to voters (The
Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell) and Ohio's vote
recount (Yost v. David Cobb, et al.). These legitimate questions brought
forward by the lawsuits, which go to the core of our voting and Democratic
process, should be resolved before Ohio's electoral votes are certified.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/01-06-2005/0002773584&EDATE=

2. <<Why couldn't the Democrats assure that there were adequate voting machines in their precincts? Surely, they were not out-maneuvered by those pesky Republicans.>>
Damschroder delivered an excess number of voting machines to the suburbs while inadequately supplying the predominantly Black precincts in Columbus. Of those precincts, 59 out of 74 had less than one machine per 300 voters; in the suburbs 58 out of 73 had more than one machine per 300 voters....In Cuyahoga County fewer machines were available for the November election than were used in the primaries. All over the state machines were kept in storage while others malfunctioned. This led people to wait in line in driving rain as long as 10 hours. It may never be known how many had to leave without voting, but one poll watcher who testified suggested 8,000 in the Youngstown area alone were disenfranchised this way..http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/ohio1230.php

"Because election officials withheld voting machines from predominantly African-American precincts, leaving too few machines in those areas, Moss and his wife saw such a long line at 10 in the morning that they decided to try voting in the afternoon."http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1436&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Jones reminded her colleagues that in Ohio people waited to vote for up to five hours and in the Cleveland area a voting precinct was closed on the morning of the election because there were no working voting machines......"Cuyahoga County had an overall provisional ballot rejection rate of 32 percent,” said Jones. “Rejection rates for provisional ballots in African-American precincts/wards in Cleveland, Ohio averaged 37 percent and ranged as high as 51 percent.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ba731275f65c8bc9196e9152d748c1e9

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/5/94939/4521

http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=OH&selectproblemtype=Vote+suppression

Yet, you are being asked to believe that fewer machines and longer lines in Afro-American precincts, the scandalously lower vote counts in Afro-American precincts, the confusion over precincts and ballots and counts and the disproportionate requirement that Afro-American voters vote provisionally all as unintentional glitches.http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1068

Kerry’s lower numbers are due to local election officials assigning more voting machines per capita to Republican-leaning suburbs than the Democrat-leaning inner city – a political decision and likely Voting Rights Act violation. The sources used for this report are available at http://freepress.org.

3. >>If anyone was fooled by letters saying that they voted on a later date (I had not heard that actually happened - that sounds like a joke), then they are not alert enough and responsible enough to vote. Again, where is the evidence? Whoever heard of a national election being conducted on multiple days?<<

Jerry, several states allow EARLY VOTING (North Carolina, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, California, New Mexico and others). Florida is one of them. Phil and Katie voted early this year. http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_17889.html for the whole list of states

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Fliers were handed out at a Pittsburgh area mall and mailed to an unknown number of homes. The flier, distributed on bogus but official-looking stationery with a county letterhead, told voters that "due to immense voter turnout expected on Tuesday," the election had been extended. Republicans should vote Tuesday, Nov. 2, it said and Democrats on Wednesday. http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL&selectproblemtype=Vote+suppression

A flier announcing that Election Day has been extended through Wednesday. Dirty tricks are a staple of campaigns, but election officials say this year's could achieve new highs in numbers and new lows in scope, especially in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio, where special-interest groups have poured in to influence the neck-and-neck race between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry. ...."In my 16 years as an election administrator, I've never seen anything like this," said Ion Sancho, supervisor of elections in Leon County, Fla. "I see it as an _expression of a political culture that has evolved in the United States of win at any cost. It's not partisan, but it's just lie, cheat and steal, and ethics be damned." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12514-2004Oct30.html


4. >>There have been claims about tampering with the voting machines by Republican programmers and manufacturers. I know that there are many postings in the Internet by numerous bloggers, but I have also heard from reliable sources that what is being charged cannot happen.<<

Reliable Sources? Would you site them for me please? And I'll give you the ones I have.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm go to this site and spend some time.

In her letter of resignation, Orange said she found the corporate philosophy at ES&S to embody unethical and disreputable practices. She said she had "personally witnessed open discussions of potentially illegal procedures."..."I have since learned that the standards to which I hold myself, I don't believe ES&S holds those same standards and values,” said Orange.http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1857668

In March ES&S was forced to put up a $10 million bond as insurance against problems and lawsuits, after it was found that in four Indiana counties the company had used uncertified software to move votes from one computer to another—and then attempted to switch back to a certified version “under the guise of routine maintenance” according to a county official. In the end, the counties used the uncertified software because it was found that the certified version did not count the votes correctly. Diebold, on the other hand, was forced to pay $2.6 million outright last month in order to settle a civil lawsuit in California in which the company was also accused of using uncertified software in an election. Not surprisingly, neither company has issued any kind of statement regarding the allegations. And despite the fact that both companies avoided criminal charges, one point remains clear: in terms of security and accountability, they both seem completely irresponsible. ....Until the effective monopoly of the Diebold and ES&S in the voting systems industry is actually broken, and U.S. lawmakers focus on the need for accountable, auditable voting systems, election fraud will always be a risk. The only solution is continued scrutiny and advocacy (this is what Becky is doing). http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505126 The Harvard Crimson Online

A Johns Hopkins University study reports that Diebold's software contains "stunning flaws" and that results can be altered at the polls or by remote control. Scores of voters were in fact stunned when they voted for Kerry and then saw the screen read a vote for Bush.

ES&S supplied a few Ohio counties with touch-screen machines and manufactures 60 percent of all the voting machines used in the U.S. ES&S began in the 1980s, when brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded DataMark with funding from William and Robert Ahmanson. The Ahmanson family has funded the Heritage Foundation; the Discover Institute, whose focus is un-discovering evolution; and the Chalcedon Institute, which advocates the death penalty "for homosexuals and drunkards."

DataMark became American Infor ma tion Systems, with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as chair. It then bought out Business Records Corp., partially owned by Carolyn Hunt of the right-wing Hunt oil family, to become ES&S. With Hagel at its helm, the company provided 80 percent of the voting machines used when Hagel first won the Nebraska Senate race. Founder Todd Urosevich remains a top executive at ES&S, but not so his brother--Bob Urosevich now heads up Diebold Election Systems! Diebold technicians were involved in questionable "servicing" of optical scanners in Toledo prior to the recount. According to sworn testimony by the Hocking County Board of Elections deputy director, a technician from TriAd illegally tampered with computers and instructed her on how to create a "cheat sheet" to make sure the recount matches the official results. TriAd manufactured the punch card machines used in 41 of Ohio's 88 counties. Its founder, Tod Rapp, is a long-time contributor to Republican and right-wing causes.http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/ohio1230.php

Item: 30 percent of all U.S. votes are entered on unverifiable touch screen voting machines, with no paper trail - that is, there's no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is what was entered by voters.

Item: 80 percent of all U.S. votes are tallied by two voting machine companies: Diebold and ES&S. The latter counts almost 60 percent of all U.S. votes.

Item: The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. The chairman and CEO of Diebold, a major Bush campaign donor, is the man who wrote in 2003 he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Diebold is based in Ohio.

Item: In April 2004, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified all electronic touch-screen voting machines in the state because of "security concerns and lack of voter confidence." He said he was "passing along evidence to the state's attorney general to bring criminal and civil charges against...Diebold...for fraud."

Item: Although Diebold's new touch screen voting machines produce no paper trail, the ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines that Diebold also makes all log each transaction; they do generate a trail.

Item: Jeff Dean was senior vice president of General Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. After Dean was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Diebold retained him as a consultant. Dean, who is largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the U.S., was convicted of planting "back doors" (security holes deliberately left in a system by designers or maintainers) in his software, and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of two years.

Item: It has been claimed that all the voting machine errors reported in Florida favored Bush and other Republicans; some experts recommend further investigation.
http://www2.townonline.com/lincoln/opinion/view.bg?articleid=157451

Pre-punched ballots; touch-screen vote switching; more absentee votes than absentee voters; unfair provisional voter deletions; change of voting sites on Election Day; voter suppression; voter intimidation; double voting; malfunctioning machines; recalibrated machines; evidently rigged machines; and even 25 million negative votes registered in some races in Mahoning County! http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14672.shtml


Look at Hocking County & Mercer Countyhttp://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL&selectproblemtype=Fraud+%28misc%29

wistleblower http://www.newstarget.com/002972.html

To my knowledge no one is claiming that a single individual stole an election single-handedly - not even the CEO of Diebold, who said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral vote to the President next year." http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1398&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Triad letter:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/triadltr122204.pdf
followup letter:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/triadfollowupltr122304.pdf

Jerry, I hope this makes you a believer. I tried my best to stay away from bloggers. It was hard, because the main stream media has very few articles on election fraud.

Becky


Jerry wrote:
Becky, if any of the charges below are true, then "proof" needs to be provided and those responsible should be charged.

What is amazing is that the areas that supposedly have less voting machines were in Democratically-controlled precincts. Why couldn't the Democrats assure that there were adequate voting machines in their precincts? Surely, they were not out-maneuvered by those pesky Republicans.

Each precinct in Ohio has a Democrat and Republican representatives to assure that everything is handled properly. Why didn't this oversight work?

If anyone was fooled by letters saying that they voted on a later date (I had not heard that actually happened - that sounds like a joke), then they are not alert enough and responsible enough to vote. Again, where is the evidence? Whoever heard of a national election being conducted on multiple days?

There have been claims about tampering with the voting machines by Republican programmers and manufacturers. I know that there are many postings in the Internet by numerous bloggers, but I have also heard from reliable sources that what is being charged cannot happen. However, to make sure that this is never an issue again, then I would be in favor implementing whatever controls are reasonable to assure voting accuracy.

Please refer to my other e-mail that lists changes that I would like to see to assure that voting is as fair and accurate as possible.

Jer
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Letter to the editor


January 10, 2005



Dear Mona:



I read your syndicated article in the Mobile Press Register. I was really surprised at several things you said. Allow me go over them with you, because I would like nothing better than to get to the real truth behind the Ohio vote challenge that occurred Jan 6, 2005 in Congress.



The Democrats are race baiting? I think that you mean we Democrats are trying to stir the pot of the African American voters to purposefully make them feel disenfranchised and angry? Mona, why would we do that? You must not be aware of what your fellow Republicans were up to in Ohio. They just must not have told you “the plan”. You see Mona, we Democrats didn’t have to lift a finger to race bait, because the Republicans did it for us. I know you don’t want to be accused of lying to the public, so I thought I would write and tell you the truth, since your Republican friends in Ohio flailed to clue you in. Here is what your friends did; they took voting machines (normally designated for heavily Democratic precincts) over to the heavily Republican precincts. That resulted in shorter lines and a heavy turn out for the Republican precincts, and long lines with a lighter than usual turn out for the heavily democratic precincts (because there just were not enough voting machines to go around). Mona this is called VOTER SUPPRESSION and I believe it is against the law. This was well documented by Rep. John Conyers from Michigan (a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee) who held two hearings in Ohio for the people to come and report what happened to them formally and officially for the Congressional Record. Perhaps you didn’t see Rep. Conyers’ formal report to congress concerning voter suppression? By the way, we didn’t have to race bait those individuals who came to the hearings and reported their personal experiences. Are you beginning to see how you may have twisted the facts, just a teensy tiny little bit? Surely you owe your readers nothing less than the truth, right?



Mona, I couldn’t believe you said, “Democrats are willing to lie and sow discord in order to win elections”. I call that a smear, Mona. That’s the very thing you accused Democrats of doing in the previous sentence of your article titled: Republicans shouldn’t let Democrats get away with race baiting, that ran in the Mobile Press Register Jan 10! You also stated that Democrats know that they can’t win if we don’t get 85 to 90 percent of the black vote. Gee, apparently the Republicans also know this. Perhaps this is why letters went out across Ohi o and other places as well telling them that Republicans were to vote on November 2, and Democrats were to vote on November 3rd? You think? Here again, Mona, it’s not the Democrats that are race baiting, it’s truly the Republicans. If you were a black voter, wouldn’t you get angry, if you were told the wrong day to vote by letter, and also discovered that they moved some of your precincts allotment of voting machines to Republican precincts? Be honest about this Mona, you owe your readers your honesty and your integrity, and most of all the truth. Vote reform is truly a non-partisan issue. It is the bedrock of our Democracy. All Americans should be for VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT VOTE REFORM. No American wants to worry if some partisan computer programmer “illegally tampered” with the tallies on their voting machine that was manufactured by a Republican owned corporation that both supplied the “code for the machine” and promised to deliver the vote for the Republican Party. The Republicans would be wise to maintain their reputations and stay clean of such campaign shenanigans. I'm a white lady who cherishes truth and democracy.



Sincerely,

Becky

[RaulVB]

8. Two things:

I don't have "Republican friends" to convince.

You either want to find out the truth or you don't.

Second, this individual doesn't have much knowledge about exit polls.

Regards.

[Karenca]

28. I don't have any Repuke friends either!...Ick!! ....nt

[EVDebs]

21. Exit polls are ok for the rest of the world and Ukraine, but our

fascists are entrenched now and even hard science or even their hands stuck in the cookie jar isn't enough to pry their hands off any power they've managed to acquire.

Professor Stephen Freeman of the Univ of Pennsylvania has done the most detailed pdf on this; odds of something like 1 in 600,000 that the battleground states had vote fraud.

[meganmonkey]

22. I am somewhat sure the discrepency lies here:

And this is to the best of my understanding - I have no links handy to back it up, so please correct me if I am wrong. In a typical exit poll, there are essentially 2 sets of results.

First, the 'raw' numbers. These are the precise responses based on the answers given. These are not representative of the vote because they often are heavy on the dems, or women, or urban people, or maybe men, repubs, and rural people - it doesn't matter who, they are accurate only in the sense that they say how the people asked responded. They are not yet accurate in relation to the overall vote.

Second, there are the weighted numbers. Theses are the ones that get released. Based on decades of experience, they are weighted to reflect what the raw numbers would mean if they DID accurately represent the real votes. Meaning that more weight is given to the men, repubs, and rural voters (if those are the ones who were lacking in the real sample). These are considered statistically very accurate, and are traditionally what is used to indicate winners before the real vote is counted. For example, on November 2nd, these were the numbers shown on CNN until around 11pm.

HOWEVER!!!! On November 2nd, 2004, there is evidence that these numbers were manipulated later in the night. At around 11:07, the numbers on CNN changed. Someone here has screen shots from their website showing this. What is damning about these screen shots is that there were examples where, say, 800 votes were added to a total, Kerry's total went up by 400 but Bush's total went up by 600. Meaning that the numbers weren't simply changed by the latest wave of polls, they were MANIPULATED. If the total number of new people polled was 800, how could the numbers change by 1,000?

As for the accuracy of exit polls in general, there is something in statistics called a margin of error (MoE). This is a given. Any statistical study has a margin of error, if you are trying to project the results of an incomplete sample to the rest of a population. Meaning that if I wanted to see how many students at a school have brown eyes, I could reasonably get that information precisely. But if I wanted to find out how many people in the country have brown eyes, I would have to ask a lot of people from a lot of different places, estimate what proportion of each type of person lives in the country overall, and calculate numbers based on that. Since I couldn't possibly find out from every single person their eye color, I could get a very accurate estimate but never be exact. So based on the size of that sample, there is a MoE - the larger that sample, the smaller the MoE. There are formulas to determine the probability that the result would be OUTSIDE the margin of error, and any reasonable statistician would make sure the sample was big enough that the odds of that are virtually nonexistent.
Exit polls are a relatively large sample, and therefore are quite accurate. Whereas most pre-election polls have a sample of maybe 700-1,000 people and claim that they represent the whole country, the exit polls' sample are ion the thousands (anyone have a number for this?). THey are pretty damn accurate, and the fact that the real numbers aren't being released is extremely suspect.

Wow, I just typed a lot. And most of that comes from memory, so I am sorry if I am wrong - and if anyone knows any different, please let me know.

[RaulVB]

25. Correct

And OHIO and Florida "results" are outside the MOE in "*"s favor.

Also, all the "errors" benefit "*"

Not an accident or "coincidence". Impossible.

[meganmonkey]

26. Thanks for adding a conclusion to my babbling!!!

I got kind of caught up in all my typing and almost forgot what my point was :)

[BamaBecky]

49. thanks.....very helpful

:toast:

[meganmonkey]

54. No prob! I hope it helps

I say a Republican friend is better than a Republican enemy - then maybe you can have reasonable discourse with them. And maybe, just maybe, you'll help them see the light.
So for all the posters who think it's gross to have some friendly Repubs around, just remember there are probably many on this board, and how can it be a bad thing to maybe change someones mind?
I never voted Dem for president before 2004 (granted, I never voted Repub either), and it took some friendly dems to change my mind!

:toast:

[TruthIsAll]

142. Here are the state exit poll sample size..and much more

I have posted this table a number of times.
The exit poll and vote percentages are for Kerry. 

Diff= Kerry deviation from exit poll to vote.
N = exit poll sample size
MOE= Margin of error = 1/sqrt(N)
StDev = standard deviation = MOE /1.96 (95% confidence level)
Prob = Probability of Diff (deviation) based on the Diff and
Stdev
Prob = 1-Normdist(Poll, Vote, MOE /1.96, true)
Odds = corresponding odds of occurrence = 1 in (1/Prob)

The deviations favored Bush in 41 out of 50 states.
Average Kerry's vote deviattion from the exit poll:  1.80%.
Average MOE was 2.85%, but it much lower in the battleground
states.


St	N	Poll	Vote	Diff	StDev	MoE	Prob  Odds	>MoE?	Favor
AK	910	40.5%	36.1%	-4.4%	1.7%	3.3%	0.005	222	yes	Bush
AL	730	41.0%	37.0%	-4.0%	1.9%	3.7%	0.017	59	yes	Bush
AR	1,402	46.6%	45.5%	-1.1%	1.4%	2.7%	0.200	5		Bush
AZ	1,859	47.0%	44.4%	-2.6%	1.2%	2.3%	0.015	65	yes	Bush
CA	1,919	54.0%	55.6%	1.6%	1.2%	2.3%	0.909	1		Kerry

CO	2,515	49.1%	47.5%	-1.6%	1.0%	2.0%	0.055	18		Bush
CT	872	58.5%	55.1%	-3.4%	1.7%	3.4%	0.025	41	yes	Bush
DC	795	91.0%	90.9%	-0.1%	1.8%	3.5%	0.480	2		Bush
DE	770	58.5%	53.5%	-5.0%	1.8%	3.6%	0.003	289	yes	Bush
FL	2,846	50.5%	47.5%	-3.0%	1.0%	1.9%	0.001	1,305	yes	Bush

GA	1,536	43.0%	41.4%	-1.6%	1.3%	2.6%	0.112	9		Bush
HI	499	53.3%	54.5%	1.2%	2.3%	4.5%	0.707	1		Kerry
IA	2,502	50.6%	49.5%	-1.2%	1.0%	2.0%	0.129	8		Bush
ID	559	33.5%	30.6%	-2.9%	2.2%	4.2%	0.090	11		Bush
IL	1,392	57.0%	55.0%	-2.0%	1.4%	2.7%	0.072	14		Bush

IN	926	41.0%	39.4%	-1.6%	1.7%	3.3%	0.169	6		Bush
KS	654	35.0%	37.4%	2.4%	2.0%	3.9%	0.883	1		Kerry
KY	1,034	41.0%	40.0%	-1.0%	1.6%	3.1%	0.264	4		Bush
LA	1,669	44.5%	42.4%	-2.1%	1.2%	2.4%	0.048	21		Bush
MA	889	66.0%	62.6%	-3.4%	1.7%	3.4%	0.024	41	yes	Bush

MD	1,000	57.0%	56.6%	-0.4%	1.6%	3.2%	0.394	3		Bush
ME	1,968	54.7%	54.1%	-0.7%	1.2%	2.3%	0.282	4		Bush
MI	2,452	52.5%	51.5%	-1.0%	1.0%	2.0%	0.170	6		Bush
MN	2,178	54.5%	51.5%	-3.0%	1.1%	2.1%	0.003	316	yes	Bush
MO	2,158	47.5%	46.0%	-1.5%	1.1%	2.2%	0.086	12		Bush

MS	798	43.3%	40.0%	-3.3%	1.8%	3.5%	0.036	28		Bush
MT	640	39.8%	39.8%	0.0%	2.0%	4.0%	0.507	2		Kerry
NC	2,167	48.0%	44.0%	-4.0%	1.1%	2.1%	0.000	7,613	yes	Bush
ND	649	34.0%	36.4%	2.4%	2.0%	3.9%	0.881	1		Kerry
NE	785	36.8%	32.3%	-4.4%	1.8%	3.6%	0.007	136	yes	Bush

NH	1,849	55.4%	50.5%	-4.9%	1.2%	2.3%	0.000	54,025	yes	Bush
NJ	1,520	55.0%	53.5%	-1.5%	1.3%	2.6%	0.132	8		Bush
NM	1,951	51.3%	49.5%	-1.8%	1.2%	2.3%	0.059	17		Bush
NV	2,116	49.4%	48.5%	-0.9%	1.1%	2.2%	0.218	5		Bush
NY	1,452	63.0%	59.2%	-3.8%	1.3%	2.6%	0.002	458	yes	Bush

OH	1,963	52.1%	49.0%	-3.1%	1.2%	2.3%	0.004	282	yes	Bush
OK	1,539	35.0%	34.0%	-1.0%	1.3%	2.5%	0.221	5		Bush
OR	1,064	51.2%	52.0%	0.8%	1.6%	3.1%	0.695	1		Kerry
PA	1,930	54.3%	51.0%	-3.3%	1.2%	2.3%	0.002	504	yes	Bush
RI	809	64.0%	60.6%	-3.4%	1.8%	3.5%	0.029	34		Bush

SC	1,735	46.0%	41.4%	-4.6%	1.2%	2.4%	0.000	11,036	yes	Bush
SD	1,495	37.8%	39.4%	1.6%	1.3%	2.6%	0.892	1		Kerry
TN	1,774	41.5%	43.0%	1.5%	1.2%	2.4%	0.892	1		Kerry
TX	1,671	37.0%	38.4%	1.4%	1.2%	2.4%	0.866	1		Kerry
UT	798	30.5%	27.6%	-2.9%	1.8%	3.5%	0.051	20		Bush

VA	1,431	48.0%	45.5%	-2.5%	1.3%	2.6%	0.032	32		Bush
VT	685	65.0%	60.2%	-4.8%	1.9%	3.8%	0.007	144	yes	Bush
WA	2,123	54.9%	53.5%	-1.4%	1.1%	2.2%	0.101	10		Bush
WI	2,223	52.5%	50.5%	-2.0%	1.1%	2.1%	0.033	31		Bush
WV	1,722	45.3%	43.4%	-1.8%	1.2%	2.4%	0.069	14		Bush
WY	684	30.9%	29.6%	-1.3%	2.0%	3.8%	0.251	4		Bush
	73,607									

Avg	1,443	48.8%	47.0%	-1.79% 1.46%	2.85%	0.11	9		Bush
Med	1,495	49.1%	47.6%	-1.81% 1.32%	2.59%	0.07	14		Bush
Min	499	30.5%	27.5%	-4.96% 0.96%	1.87%	0.00	54,025		
Max	2,846	91.0%	90.9%	2.37%  2.28%	4.48%	0.91	1		

[nmoliver]

24. What evidence is there that Bush won this election?

If the exit polls aren't worthwhile, then what other method does your friend think exists for verifying and auditing results that are tallied secretly and vulnerable to rigging and hacking?

Worded another way: apart from machine tallies which have never been independently tested, overseen or audited, what evidence is there that Bush won this election?

The results of the original exit polls are corroborated by turnout patterns. This alleged tsunami wave of Bible-belt fundamentalist voters were never seen by anybody, anywhere, on election day. Minority district voting, however, was. There is no circumstantial or anecdotal evidence anywhere that corroborates a Bush victory for this election.

I'd tell him that for the last 40 years, exit polls have predicted the winner as reliably as your bank statement informs you of your bank balance. None of us ever thought about exit polls over the last 40 years of watching late-night election returns because they were never wrong. This year, in particular, the pollsters doubled their sample size to make sure that they would get it right. They "lost their knack" when the Bushes showed up with their electronic machines and various other means of secret manipulation.

The US has held exit polls to be a valid audit of the integrity of the election in Ukraine, Russia and Mexico, and supported overturning the results when the tallies didn't match the exit polls. Exit polls are not a form of entertainment; internationally, they have been regarded for decades as the primary way to verify the integrity of elections. The US has stood by this position internationally.

As far as the "gender" issue and so forth - these things are accounted for in the margin of error. In fact, that is the purpose of the margin of error.

Midday when the pollsters realized that they were way off from the tallies, they ALTERED their TESTING METHODOLOGY to CONFORM to the tallies. To this day they have refused to release their raw data. Changing your methodology to bring about the results you want is as fraudulent a scientific practice as you can get.

In fact, it is collusion. Complicity. Conspiracy, if you insist. As in the grassy knoll variety.

[RaulVB]

41. Great post!

Bull's eye! :toast:

[BamaBecky]

50. thank you...very helpful

:toast:

[Stevepol]

52. Many other points could be made about the exit polls as well.

The exit polls in the election were quite accurate in the states that had paper. In the states w/o paper the numbers were wrong, all wrong. Why? In IL e.g. the exit polls were right on the money, in WI very close, in ME very close. These 3 states as I understand it use paper to a considerable extent or wholly (I think IL uses paper wholly). In CA where the Secy of State impounded the Diebold machines and laid down some rules about auditing, the results were very close to the exit polls. And so it goes thru-out the states.

In German elections exit polls are so accurate that they are used to determine the winners and are almost never wrong. When the counting of the paper is done, after two weeks, the person the exit polls picked is already in the office doing his job.

This nit-picking w/ the exit polls is nonsense. They are extremely accurate, nowadays more accurate than ever, and they indicate clearly that there was fraud in the election.

[Lurker321]

55. Let's see -

the states where the raw exit poll data was beyond MOE in 2004 are (in the order of error):

DE NH VT SC NE AK AL NC NY CT RI MA PA MS OH FL MN UT ID AZ VA LA IL

Are all of these states' elections run on machines without a paper trail?

German elections - I was intrigued by the assertion that they are extremely accurate, so I went and checked.

The thing about German elections is that the winner is usually by a huge margin, such as 60/40 or so. If the elections you are trying to predict show results such as 60%/40% you can easily use exit polls to predict the winner of an election. I can assure you, that if a German exit poll would show a result of 51%/49%, no one in Germany would use that to predict the winner of an election.

I looked at the last election in Germany that had exit polling in order to check the accuracy claim - the June 2004 European Parliament election. Don't have the URLs handy so you will have to trust me on my recall of the numbers, or go google them yourself. The exit polls showed 42% for the leading party, 23% for the trailing party. So, the winner was easily predicted. The actual results were 45% for the leading party and 21% for the trailing one. Thus, as you can see yourself, if the exit polls were actually showing 51%/49% they could not be used to predict the outcome, because the exit polls are not accurate enough.

That's the problem with using German exit polls as an example. Yes, they are used to predict the outcome of the elections, because the elections are decided pretty definitely in Germany. No, they are not much more accurate than the US exit polls.

[ccarter84]

71. I'm sorry, Freeman article page 7-8 counters you

it shows this "problem with using German exit polls as an example." as you so put it does not exist.
The last three elections are shown for German National Elections, German part of EU parliament...and something about Coalitions in Germany
all are quite accurate...
heres my source
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf
:toast:
-CC

[Lurker321]

74. Here are the links that show results and exit polls of June, 2004

German European Parliament election:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/WireFeed/WireFeed&c=WireFeed&cid=1086875005485&p=1014232938216

The exit polls projection:

SPD     22.9
CDU+CSU 46.3

Official results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Election%2C_2004_%28Germany%29
(in german: http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/wahlen/europawahl2004/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/be_tabelle_99.html)

SPD     21.5% (1.4% difference from exit polls)
CDU+CSU 44.5% (1.8% difference from exit polls) 

Was this an anomalous election for Germany, since Freeman claims much smaller errors in German exit polls?

Again, with 1.4% and 1.8% errors you can see how a close election (such as 51% to 49%) cannot be reliably called by such exit polls, don't you?

[southwood]

79. The European Parliament ....

... has no significant powers, so nobody comes to power because of these elections. Not many people pay attention to the outcome and turnout is rather low. They are sometimes used as an opportunity to vow discontent with a current national government. As you can see from the official results a lot of social democrats (SPD) either stayed home or voiced a protest by voting for CDU/CSU. The SPD + Greens are now in power nationally.
For the national election in Germany, which is obviously very important, the accuracy of exit polling is very high, as documented by Freeman.

[Lurker321]

88. Yet Freeman uses the European Parliament

German elections' exit polls in his paper to show that exit polls in Germany are accurate. So - are they or aren't they? With errors of 1.8% I don't think they would be very reliable in a close election. Germans get away with it because their elections are not close.

[southwood]

91. Well,..

Please read Freeman's paper.

1. Your figures on exit polls European Parliament 2004 don't match those provided by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen to Freeman. The maximum difference between the ZDF exit poll and final tally is that for CDU/CSU: 1.0 % The others are much smaller.
2. I'm not sure what the closeness of an election has to do with the predictive power of exit polling, but please check table 1.4 in Freeman. German politics is about left vs. right , i.e. SPD + Greens vs. CDU/CSU + FDP. The official tally of the German national election was 47.1 vs. 45.9. Seems pretty close to me.

[thanatonautos]

111. Completely bogus argument about the German elections.

The thing about German elections is that the winner is usually by a huge margin, such as 60/40 or so. If the elections you are trying to predict show results such as 60%/40% you can easily use exit polls to predict the winner of an election. I can assure you, that if a German exit poll would show a result of 51%/49%, no one in Germany would use that to predict the winner of an election.

The thing about German Parliamentary Elections is that
they are elections in a parliamentary system.

A party that only wins a plurality, not a majority,
still must form a coalition government, even though
it may win by a large margin over all other parties.

The interesting question, therefore, in asking who
`wins' the German elections is not only which party
wins a plurality, but also how many votes go to the
majority and minority coalitions which the parties
build in parliament.

In Germany, for example the FDP is generally aligned
with CDU/CSU, while the Greens are aligned with the SDP,
and there are a couple of small unaligned parties.

Add up the votes for these major coalition partners,
and you'll find that the German elections are much
closer than you think, and that the exit polls still
do pretty damn well at predicting which of the
coalitions wins.

Take a look at table 1.4, page 8 in the following paper.

Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy

[Kellanved]

124. Sorry, that is incorrect

The elections can be pretty close in Germany as well. In the last general Elections, the major two parties tied.

Of course the Exit Polls were wrong about that and predicted a conservative victory - they happen to be neither especially accurate, nor are they used for any official results. The only major difference is that the media doesn't publish them while the stations are still open.

[southwood]

129. Discrepancy

Your first point is obviously right, but there is a contradiction between your second point ("the exit polls predicted a conservative victory") and the figures provided by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen to Freeman, in which a victory for the left is actually predicted for the last general election. See link in post 111 (above yours). Could you enlighten us on this discrepancy?
I can understand that the networks didn't call the election for one or the other side based on the exit polls, but the issue here is whether the exit polls actually predicted the outcome accurately.
It would indeed be better if the U.S. networks did not publish exit poll figures until all polls are closed.

[Kellanved]

130. depends on the institute

Allensbach saw a CDU/fdp victory, the Forschungsgruppe missed the final result by several percent, alas in the "correct" direction.

During the Election Evening, it looked like a conservative victory, the conservative candidate even held a victory speech around 9PM (edit: 7PM, sorry) - at that time only one group saw the red/green coalition leading (Emnid).


Here is a matrix of Exit Polls vs. the actual result(first column) (2nd Edit: oops, wrong Matrix; I'll look up the correct one) :
http://www.politik.uni-mainz.de/kai.arzheimer/Lehre-ESF/Wahlprognosen.html


Again Edit:
Here the Polls:

Exit Polls 2002:


Ergebnis 2002, 18 Uhr
ARD ZDF
SPD 37 38
CDU 39 38
B90/Grüne 9.5 9
FDP 7 7.5
PDS 4.3 4.0

http://www.berlin.spd.de/servlet/PB/menu/1018933/

[southwood]

131. your first link refers to pre-election polls, not exit polls!

... or perhaps your edit didn't succeed.

[Kellanved]

132. I've added a link with Exit poll data

From a party site, but I vouch for the data. It lists the the predictions made by the two PBS channels, starting with 6PM (Exit Polls) to the official result at 2:20 AM. Due to a strike in one district the counting wasn't finished that night, that was a first however.


You see, there was quite a scandal about the Exit Poll's lack of accuracy after the election.

[southwood]

134. Thanks, just read thru your second link...

... which is very informative!

However, wouldn't you agree that the Forschungsgruppe/ZDF exit poll of 18.00 - I assume this is when polls close? - directly after polls close, is very close to the actual result?

18.00 ZDF

SPD 38
CDU 38
B90/Grüne 9,5
FDP 7,5
PDS 4,0

Actual vote tally

SPD 38,5
CDU/CSU 38,5
Grüne 8,6
FDP 7,4
PDS 4,0

The 1800 ARD poll was off a bit more, but even they predicted the winning coalition (46,5 vs 46).

This is very different from going 51/48 to 48/51 as is being discussed in this forum.

(And greetings from that small country to your west!)

[Kellanved]

135. Hi

The first hour of polls is IMHO the most interesting. It uses the data won by the Exit Polls combined with the districts using Voting Machines (which tend to be western and rich).


:hi:

point taken.

[southwood]

137. Freeman assumes...

that the figures he has about German exit polls are "pure", i.e. not "contaminated" with actual election outcomes. Is this correct in your opinion? (Don't want to leave the Americans with a wrong impression about German election polls.) I read through your second link (SPD/Berlin) again but couldn't find fuss about the exit polls. Perhaps elaborate?


(Signing off for tonight.)

[Kellanved]

138. he is correct

The 18:00 poll is labeled a "Prognose", which means that no actual results were used in the creation.
"Hochrechnung" means that actual results were used.


Good Night, sleep well.

[spooked911]

56. Yeah, baby-- you tell it.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

58. Yes-- they worked when you had paper ballots you could count

what about when it's all electronic? How do you know the machine is tallying correctly?

You simply don't.

Plus, no one ever suspected fraud in Washington. We only suspect in places with rethug rule.

[euler]

77. I think there is at least one...

... false statement in nearly every one of your paragraphs.

"the last 40 years, exit polls have predicted the winner as reliably as your bank statement informs you of your bank balance"

This is incorrect. There is so much evidence of inaccurate exit polls on the web, that it defies belief that people still think they are always accurate.

exit polls can be used to verify the actual vote count, but only if it is designed to do so. Since MSM paid for the exit poll, they got to tell Mitofsky what they wanted the exit poll to tell them, and Mitofsky designed a exit poll to give them what they want. Verifying the actual vote count was not a design criteria, therefore, it can't reliably be used to verify the vote count. Again elementary stuff. Learn Google.

Europe designs exit polls that can be used to verify elections, so their exit polls can be used for that purpose.

People somehow have come to believe that exit polls were used to prove fraud in Ukraine. That's not accurate. It was the people who were beat up at the polls, the ballot boxes that were doused with acid and set on fire, it was the bus loads of people going from one prescient to the next, voting in each one. When MSM started covering the fraud in the Ukraine, the phrase 'exit poll' did not even appear in the news reports until a couple days later. The exit polls corroborated what was already known.

"To this day they have refused to release their raw data"

It's not theirs to release. It's called capitalism. The customer pays for it, and the customer gets to decide who sees it. We may not like it, but we can't infer fraud from that alone.

[nmoliver]

86. disagree

Free enterprise is fine AS LONG AS these private interests are not in control of the public domain: including making war, polluting the air and water, determining public energy policy, and counting public votes. With the great bulk of the voting and tabulating process in "private" hands, beyond public supervision and oversight, these results are not "none of our business". I have no objection to people making large fortunes with which to buy mansions and yachts and long vacations. I object when they use their money to purchase parts of the public domain, including the government itself, thereby buying power and control over the society.

"Defies belief" is not a convincing counterargument.

The acts of fraud in the USA are just as widely known - thousands of disappeared ballots, people in line for hours, more votes than registered voters, and so forth. The difference is that in the USA it is considered "business as usual" and so the results are allowed to stand.

Whose data is it to release? If MSM paid for the exit poll, then why are they keeping it secret?

You don't have confidence in the exit polls but you have not provided an alternative with which we can verify that this highly new, new-fangled technology is accurate. Verified in Washington doesn't mean verified in Florida. Verified in Maine doesn't mean verified in Texas. Verified in one district in Florida doesn't mean verified in every district. There has to be broad-scale, public supervision and audit.

The courts have BACKED these software companies that have claimed RIGHTS OF PRIVACY to CONCEAL their "proprietary software" ("none of our business"). As if the right of privacy that was guaranteed to human beings to protect us all from huge, powerful, wealthy institutions is the same thing as a "right" of "privacy" for corporate "persons". And this at a time when we are all losing our Constitutionally protected rights of privacy through the "Patriot" acts.

You have to be particularly careful in states with a history of using "state's rights" to disenfranchise black people: states with a history of poll taxes, literacy tests, and Jim Crow laws. Have these good segregationists had a loving change of heart at one point?

[Rebecca]

89. very clear, thanks!

[FogerRox]

97. Freakin AH right dude--and Becky your post rocked too

[smartvoter]

69. Take a direct, simple approach:

Hit him with both Freeman and Morris stuff so he can see that experts on both sides disagree regarding the intent of the exit polls. Also, we have MANY articles cited out here describing that exit polls are used to detect election fraud. It's easy to prove that his premise is wrong, even if it's not so easy to prove the polls were right.

[berniew1]

70. Ask him to debunk the documented fraud that explains the poll results

There was widespread and systematic voter suppression of minority voters, dirty tricks, vote machine fraud, and other vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida- that was of magnitude enough to call in question who won those states.

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html
etc.

and also similar patterns in other states where the suppression and fraud did not change the election results including vote machine fraud in Calif., Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, etc.
http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html
http://www.flcv.com/snohomis.html
http://www.flcv.com/mercerco.html
http://www.flcv.com/philadel.html
http://www.flcv.com/texas.html
http://www.votersunite.org
etc.

(the voter suppression of minorities in Mercer County is the worst I've ever seen-followup needed)

The unethical and illegal actions were so systematic and widespread that this cannot be allowed to continue uninvestigated and unpunished. There was a huge amount of obvious malfeasance and dirty tricks that should be investigated and dealt with
http://www.flcv.com/dirtytrf.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.votersunite.org
http://www.freepress.org departments

[BamaBecky]

80. thank you....very helpful

:hi:

[johnaries]

72. I would simply ask him, then why did Bush support the Ukrainian revote

based on the exit polls?

[rumpel]

73. Then you can ask, why did the repubs make such a fuss

about the discrepancy in the Ukaraine, if it is so unreliable, as well as other country elections worldwide at the initiation of the US to be accepted as an indicator?

[anaxarchos]

78. You should ask your Republican friend...

...where he read what he said to you. This has become a right-wing mantra in the last several weeks. Not just the general sentiment but the exact points, the details and even many of the words.

If it is a conspiracy theory and "delusional", why spend so much time and effort "debunking" - even to the point of published and memorized talking points? ....even on this board.

[BamaBecky]

81. I will.......thanks

:hi:

[Der Blaue Engel]

92. Excellent point, anaxarchos

So, would you care to answer that, those of you (you know who you are) who are parroting these talking points with such zeal? Why the ZEAL? Do you really care about us poor deluded conspiracy theorists SO much?

What are you afraid of?

[tngledwebb]

85. Make a reasonable argument, use logic, show examples.

Then do it again. Be patient, and you will find this approach will convince most intelligent, open-minded people, if your case is sound.

It will not work on fools, those with closed minds, and far-right repugs.

[flintdem]

94. Republican friend right on one point...

Exit polls as they are practiced in the U.S. are not designed to determine who wins. The National Research Commission on Elections and Voting (Part of the Social Science Research Council) has released a preliminary report about the 2004 election looking at many of the same electoral "problems" covered here at DU. This is a very competent group of social scientists with no ideological axe to grind. Here is their take on using the exit polls to tell who won:

"Thus, because of these and other limitations intrinsic to their sampling methods, current exit polls are not well-suited for estimating differences in measures like turnout or vote division by voting device, as the samples are not designed to reflect counties, or even specific county groups....Nevertheless, some analysts inappropriately attempt to use current exit poll results to investigate whether the results in a locale (state or country) are accurate or whether fraud might be involved in an election.10 A certain form of exit poll could be used for this purpose, but again the designs would have to be different. To validate results in specific precincts or from particular machines, the designs would have to incorporate larger numbers of interviews with voters leaving the polls for precision. And the stratification strategy would also need to be different, focusing on a combination of machine types and geography, for example, including a larger number of precincts at the first stage."

To find out what we want to know takes a different design (similar perhaps to what Germany uses?).

The whole report is at:
http://election04.ssrc.org/research/InterimReport122204.pdf

[RaulVB]

96. Wrong

The US TV networks USE THEM EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON.

To call the "winner" of a race with "certainty."

[flintdem]

98. Only if the initial votes totals match the exit poll...

and if the margin of the exit poll numbers is so large as to be fool proof (usually a .001 confidence level or higher).

These Ph.D's do polling for a living (Henry Brady is best know for the 1990 Citizen Participation Study and numerous articles and books). They have intensive background in statistics and polling methods. On that basis they say U.S. exit polls aren't designed for what we Du'ers want from them. What is your background or basis for saying otherwise?

[anaxarchos]

100. You are mis-using this study...

It is absolutely true that current exit-polls are not "designed" to validate elections in the U.S. It is true that they can be mis-used. It is not true nor is it the conclusion of this study that current U.S. exit polls can not be used in any way for that purpose nor is there any specific critisism of any studies which have specifically used them for that purpose. That would be outside these authors area of concentration.

This is a pretty conservative academic group that draws some pretty conservative conclusions. Nevertheless, they EXPLICITLY do not rule out the possibility of vote fraud:

"While these authors do not believe that the alleged irregularities in Ohio, if confirmed to be true, are of a sufficient magnitude to have changed the winner of the popular vote in that state, we believe that a systematic, nonpartisan review of all available evidence is necessary to confirm that the results of the election are legitimate...lthough the authors of this report do not believe at this time that the current election was 'stolen,' we nonetheless acknowledge that nonpartisan observers will never know with full confidence whether all aspects of the most recent election were administered according to applicable laws...because the necessary data are either not collected or not publicly available..."

More than this, the Commission specifically and favorably calls out the Nashua Advocate report on their study under the title: "Even the Non-Partisan National Research Commission on Elections and Voting Cannot Conclusively State the Election Was Not Stolen"

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2004/12/news-election-2004-even-non-partisan.html

One final point. This is the 5th or 6th time in the last 2 weeks that someone has sourced a "learned study" to attack the use of exit polls on this board. In each case, the "learned study" did not at all support the posters' assertions.

If ya wanna take out TIA and others, you are just gonna have to work a little harder.

[flintdem]

104. I'm not misusing it...

Did you read what I quoted from the report? Did you read the whole report or just look at Nashuaadvocate?

"Nevertheless, some analysts inappropriately attempt to use current exit poll results to investigate whether the results in a locale (state or country) are accurate or whether fraud might be involved in an election.10 A certain form of exit poll could be used for this purpose, but again the designs would have to be different."

Prior to this quote they go through the reasons why the NEP won't work. They are saying you can't prove fraud with this data, its not designed correctly, doesn't correctly place the interviews (in position and number) and have enough resources (in terms of number of precincts and total number of respondents) committed in the field to measure what we want to find.

Yes, they say they can't definitively rule out fraud but read the report and you will see that they poke holes in most of the current studies (Freeman and others) and they cite political scientists who are known for the quality of their previous work in Florida 2000 (finding proof of bad ballot design) who already have papers done on 2004 and can't find fraud. Henry Brady was involved in the fight in California to get a paper trail for all ballots, is a past president of Political Methodology Group of the American Political Science Association and has an outstanding publication record in voting and elections- and he is just one of the authors!!! I'll take him over TIA, whom I know nothing about, any day.

[anaxarchos]

108. OK, on the off chance that you are sincere...

...you are still wrong. The Hoyle, et al report was published before Christmas. The "allegations of fraud" they have in mind date well before that. In the pertinent part of the study (i.e. on exit polls) they have basically 2 criticisms:

1) That exit polls lack the granularity necessary to correlate specific county or regional results to specific factors like voting machine types. This is the "design" issue you are focused on (and the quote you used):

"...current exit polls are not well-suited for estimating differences in measures like turnout or vote division by voting device, as the samples are not designed to reflect counties, or even specific county groups... To validate results in specific precincts or from particular machines, the designs would have to incorporate larger numbers of interviews with voters leaving the polls for precision. And the stratification strategy would also need to be different, focusing on a combination of machine types and geography, for example, including a larger number of precincts at the first stage."

2) They note the disparity between early exit polls and the election outcome:

"Indeed, disparities between exit poll results and final vote counts in the 2004 election were larger than those observed in other recent presidential elections."

But, they point out that there is a certain black magic or "art" to the interpretation of those early exit polls that requires both later data and an understanding of NEP modifiers. Their point is:

"Although these disparities have alarmed many observers, for several methodological reasons there is no a priori reason to believe that these differences reflect problems with the actual vote tallies."

or so called prima facie evidence of fraud. Instead, if you turn to the recommendations section, they suggest:

"More definitive tests of current theories seeking to explain exit poll discrepancies will require full disclosure of both the raw data and the specific weightings and other refinements used to transform them over the course of Election Day. Such disclosures would allow researchers to test possible explanations (e.g., that there were too many women in the sample, or that Kerry voters were more likely to agree to be interviewed than Bush voters)."

That is precisely the analysis using late exit-poll data that has been ongoing on this board and in many other places for the last few weeks.

None of this even comes close to your dismissive: "Exit polls as they are practiced in the U.S. are not designed to determine who wins".

Instead, they say of the exit-pollsters:

"Their results, in conjunction with other elements of statistical models used by the National Election Pool (NEP) and the decision desks of their news organization members, are best suited for determining the difference between the two leading candidates and whether it is safe to call a particular race for one of them."

You are mis-using the study.

As far as the Nashua Advocate goes, I found that link on the SSRC website after I had read the study.

As far as poking holes in Hout or Freeman or usvoting.com, we can go into that as well if you like.

[flintdem]

114. Let me be clearer

In some ways we may be talking past each other. Exit polls- if the margin between the candidate is large enough and/or early vote totals match the precinct level polling- are used by media as confirmations of who is winning. I don't argue that they are used that way (and somewhat incorrectly). Mitofsky (NEP) has argued for a much higher level of significance for projecting a winner than the media wants to use because it basically wouldn't allow them to make projections (NEP used a .005 level on election night and Mitofsky has argued for .0001). That is not the pollster or scientist's fault, that is media facing competitive pressure to declare winners. The dirty secret of the NEP is that using their standards, 18 states could not have been called using their data and their confidence levels, because the margins fell within those confidence levels.

Link: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/so_if_exit_poll.html

Now you can argue for different, less restrictive confidence levels but the designers of the poll (who know best the accuracy of their own data) don't recommend it.

So the NEP is basically designed to confirm blowouts, but not close elections. In addition the NEP was not designed to determine vote shares.

In talking about the Kerry skew in the data (which I am not arguing doesn't exist- I'm just haven't seen evidence proving fraud), the SSRC study says:

"Although these disparities have alarmed many observers, for several methodological reasons there is no a priori reason to believe that these differences reflect problems with the actual vote tallies. Rather, exit polls as currently designed and administered in the United States are not suitable for use as point estimators for the share of votes that go to different candidates."

So (looking at the entire SSRC study)the study is saying that the NEP design for 2004 cannot be used point estimators for vote totals, cannot be used to analysis differences between machine types, or to evaluate turnout rates.

So we can't predict vote totals, determine machine fraud or examine turnout based on this data. Using NEP standards we can't use it to predict winners (let alone vote margins!) in 18 states. So we can take all of our statistical analysis, wrap it up in a big bow and give to any commission, investigative group, Congress, etc and based on what I have just laid out they have legitimate reasons for tossing it all aside and saying it's not accurate and it doesn't matter.

We are spending so much effort and discussion on analysis that won't past the "expert test" because we are misusing the data to prove what it cannot accurately measure. I'm not arguing that fraud shouldn't be one of the explanations examined for the Kerry skew in NEP but everything we have done here at best will just resulted in academics sitting in front of a commission arguing about each study's validity while the public rolls it eyes. I'm not sure even getting the unweighted data from Mitofsky (in part because of the design issues) will be of much help because past unweighted data has all shown a Democratic skew:

1988: Dukakis, 50.3; Bush, 49.7

1992: Clinton, 46; Bush, 33.2

1996: Clinton, 52.2; Dole, 37.5

2000: Gore, 48.5; Bush, 46.2

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com/pow/pownovember_17_2004.cfm

This NEP data is not our salvation. It may make us feel better. it may confirm what we already want to believe about the 2004 election. It does show a problem but it can't find causes or explanations.

So I still argue that the gop friend is right on NEP not showing winners but the rest of the arguments are bogus :)

[Chi]

116. Let me get this straight

Heya flintdem
So, (if I got you right) you believe that (U.S.) exit polls can indicate fraud, but not prove it.
So the Gray area is, what level of indicator can the exit polls provide.
I understand you believe it can't indicate it at 100% certainty (proof), but at what level of confidence do you believe it can be used at?

Thnx in Advance

[anaxarchos]

123. Clarity is always good.

There are two issues with your posts, a smaller one and a larger one.

The smaller issue is that you are overstating your case in almost every instance.

You say "Exit polls as they are practiced in the U.S. are not designed to determine who wins." I agree to that in my first sentence. But that is not what you imply. In fact, you are agreeing with the "Republican Friend" that exit polls CANNOT be used, in any way, for that purpose - that to try to do so is "delusional". That is not true. The data is real, the criteria is understood, the limitations are stipulated, and the record is quite good (despite the current attempts to " have it both ways"). The "Republican Friend" and you want to say any analysis based on exit polls is a priori wrong based solely on this design issue. But that says nothing. It is absolutely true that my table was not "designed" to be a bookcase but that does not keep me from piling an awful lot of books on it.

You cite the Hoyle and company study as supporting the position above and then do a good bit of resume-mongering on their behalf (which I don't agree with, BTW, but that is another story). But Hoyle and company aren't willing to go anywhere near as far out on this limb as you and the "Republican Friend" are willing to. Instead, they sneer a bit at "the black art", raise their objections about the granularity of the data and the difficulty of using early exit-polls without later weighting and methodology and then CALL FOR THE RELEASE of the raw data and the methodology. They do this not simply to still the disquieted public but in order to do exactly the same analysis with the data ("alternative explanations") that you want them to reject because exit-polls "are not designed..." etc. If you agree with the Republican Friend, then you do not agree with Hoyle, etc. which is the only citation you have provided.

Just to prove it isn't me, you say: "So (looking at the entire SSRC study) the study is saying that the NEP design for 2004 cannot be used point estimators for vote totals, cannot be used to analysis differences between machine types, or to evaluate turnout rates. So we can't predict vote totals, determine machine fraud or examine turnout based on this data.". The difference between your "cannot be used" and "can't predict" and the SSRC's "not well-suited" is key. You do not have support for your or the "Republican Friend's" position from Hoyle & company. You are too far out there. Hoyle & company merely add a caution whereas you are rejecting exit polls. Caution noted; rejection rejected.

You then move, in a very broad way, into a whole range of issues:

"So the NEP is basically designed to confirm blowouts, but not close elections. In addition the NEP was not designed to determine vote shares."

"The dirty secret of the NEP is that using their standards, 18 states could not have been called using their data and their confidence levels, because the margins fell within those confidence levels".

"I'm not sure even getting the unweighted data from Mitofsky (in part because of the design issues) will be of much help because past unweighted data has all shown a Democratic skew."

etc....

These points consist of debates between Blumenthal (the Mystery Pollster) or Mitofsky and the world, have nowhere near the weight of the SSRC report, and have been very widely discussed already, including on this board. It is not relevant to what we have been discussing and I don't agree with a single syllable of what you have said. But... much more important... at this point even you have abandoned the "republican friend" and moved from "cannot use" into "how to use" exit-polls. Now the lonely "republican friend" has only other "republicans" to talk to. Well fuck him. He wasn't serious anyway. To him, it was just a "talking point".

Out of respect to Flint (once the center of the universe) and to the smiley face you sent, we can discuss these as well, if you like.... but separately.

You then move on to a MUCH larger point:

"So we can take all of our statistical analysis, wrap it up in a big bow and give to any commission, investigative group, Congress, etc and based on what I have just laid out they have legitimate reasons for tossing it all aside and saying it's not accurate and it doesn't matter."

Your disagreement is political and tactical, not scientific. And here, there are no longer any "experts". We haven't "missed each other" at all.

"...everything we have done here at best will just result in academics sitting in front of a commission arguing about each study's validity while the public rolls it eyes."

I agree with you, but this time, I will go further. I believe this will be the case no matter how well designed the exit-poll data may be or how many "experts we line up". Many people believe we do this analysis not so much to "feel better" but to confirm what other data also suggests, to understand where to look for the hows and whys of a stolen election, and to specifically undermine the dismissals of the wider GOP which at best doesn't give a shit if the election was stolen or not. It is not easy. If you are really from Flint, then help us.

[flintdem]

147. A couple points...

I did overstate my argument in my first post. Exit polls CAN be used to determine winners but if we follow the NEP standard there are quite a few elections where no winner can be determined from the exit poll. That I think is part of the misconception of the public and the media as to what exit polls can do. They CAN and they CANNOT determine winners and the closeness of the election appears to the significant dividing factor.

In terms of what the data can and cannot "prove" otherwise... In my experience if a colleague or reviewer tells me my data is not "suitable" for the analysis I am doing -that is usually a kiss of death for the article (no R&R). If they are not "well-suited" I probably have an opportunity to defend the validity of my usage. But now I have to do more than just show my results, I have to convince others that my usage of the data is valid and that I am measuring what I claim to be measuring- a much more difficult job (which hasn't been done with any of the analyzes here- lots of results, no validity proofs).

To claim finding a fraud of 2% in precincts with an N of 50 strains credulity. Regardless of precinct size your odds are 1 in 50 of interviewing someone whose Kerry vote was electronically changed. Match that with the idea that "bush voter aversion to pollsters" only requires an average of one aversion per precinct adding one more Kerry respondent to produce a 2% shift, and you cannot prove one hypothesis (aversion or fraud) over the other with this data (a recount with a paper trail could though prove fraud, but not a data analysis- a recount showing a pattern would be proof). Jump the precinct N to 200 respondents, add more than one interviewer to insure wire to wire coverage and actually have supervisors check the distance between the pollsters and the exits and in the aggregate across the nation or state you can produce a convincing design and possible case for fraud.

edited for sloppy grammer

[anaxarchos]

149. This is a reasonable outcome to our disagreement...

And is probably unusual for such web discussions. Our disagreement is over the rules of engagement and the field of battle (is it academic, juridical, or political, etc.?). I accept that.

My best regards to Flint.

[flintdem]

150. Ditto

and you have challenged me to be much more precise in my posting!!!

[southwood]

102. the SSRC study...

... specifically states that it is based on early exit polls, as opposed to late polls as have been extensively discussed here, that it wants to be able to study the NEP, which has by now also been scrutinized in this forum - no thanks to the pollsters - and calls for timely disclosure of raw data and methodology, which we are still waiting for.
Its primary conclusion is that early exit polls do not constitute prima facie evidence of fraud. My take would be that late exit polls as well as the NEP do at the very least constitute serious indications of a disparity between voter intent and election outcome, which requires thorough investigation.

[electropop]

117. Uh, your quote doesn't support your contention

The quote says that the exit polls as designed/operated here, don't have high enough geospatial resolution to be useful for looking at individual counties or precincts. It says nothing whatever about estimating the overall or statewide results, which is what the networks pay huge $$$ to Mitovsky for.

[info being]

99. How does he know that the sampling wasn't accurate?

That's what he's claiming. That surely needs to be backed up with evidence.

[TruthIsAll]

101. Your friend is no different than the naysays we find here.

They are quick to debunk in areas they know nothing about.

"Whoever wrote the article above is delusional".

Well, I guess we might as well stop right there. The Univ. of Illinois professors are "delusional"

"To try to compare the raw vote to exit polls is not a valid exercise. For one thing, exit polls were originally designed to determine why voters voted a certain way or who (race, sex, etc.) was voting for the candidates. Exit Polls were never designed to indicate who was winning or going to win".

No. That is true. But they do tell us who WON.

"There were at 3 major reasons why the exit polls were misleading: (1) they were taken primarily in metropolitan areas, where Democrats are traditionally favored..."

That is pure BS. Mitofsky knows where to poll...

2) " the ratio of women to men was higher than the voting population (again, women favored Kerry)".

More women voted percentage-wise than did men (54/46). It is NOT the voting population (otherwise 240 million would have voted). It's who VOTED.

3) "exit polls are not a scientific sampling, etc. I know there are many bloggers saying otherwise, but they are trying to determine the raw vote from exit polls - I don't believe that is possible."

Mitofsky, the "father" of exit polling, says that it is a randomly-selected sample. What makes your friend such an "expert".

But don't even try to convince him. It's impossible to open closed
mind unless his child was drafted and sent to Iraq. Then he would agree with you.

Maybe the naysays would like him to join their tag team.

[BamaBecky]

105. You have such a good head on your shoulders! Thank You! eom

:kick:

[I_Love_Oregon]

107. This focus on the "stolen" election is not healthy!

As a committed Democrat... who BADLY wants to see our side back in power, our cause is not helped by this irrational focus on the election. WE MUST move on! It's time to focus on the future, and how best to take our county back!

Besides, the evidence IS NOT very strong showing a stolen election. If Long lines in Ohio is the best you've got, than you've really got nothing at all. The last time I checked, not only were there thousands of attorney's who couldn't find enough evidence to put up a fight, and not only does one certain Democratic nominee named Kerry not see enough evidence to put a fight, but elections are run by precinct co-chairs, and that means the Democratic ch-chair would be equally culpable!

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Junkdrawer]

113. Yeah. We might win the rigged game next time. My money's up...

Who's our next (sucker) candidate?

[Pacifist Patriot]

115. That stuff you're seeing is sand.

Get your head out of it.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/

http://www.votersunite.org

[Chi]

119. Did your vote get counted?

Thousands upon thousand of U.S. citizens get their right to vote taken away from them, and all you can say is get over it?

How American of you.

[johan helge]

120. Noone knows for sure whether the election was stolen.

That's the problem - the US election system would be considered just a bad joke in other democratic countries (e-voting WITHOUT a paper trail, or ballots being counted ONLY by machines). So it's important to try to prove or disprove the result - and to try to change the system.

[Time for change]

126. The evidence IS very strong for a stolen election

Read the original post to get some idea of why. How can we move on without addressing the only reason why we lost the election. If this isn't exposed and corrected we will NEVER have another Democratic Congress or President.

[I_Love_Oregon]

140. a paper trail is needed, but...

No doubt a better system is an absolute MUST have by the next election. We cannot continue to have elections that call into question in the SLIGHTEST way who the real winner is.

However, here's the point I've been making since the election, and I have yet to get a sound response:

EVEN if Ohio was somehow stolen from Kerry, which I very much doubt was, he STILL lost the popular vote BY 3.5 MILLION VOTES! How do you account for that? Clearly, Kerry DID NOT connect with a large chunk of the voters who move between parties. And don't tell me there was some nation-wide conspiracy that sent literally millions of extra votes into Bush's side of the ledger that should have gone to Kerry. A conspiracy of that magnitude is IMPOSSIBLE. And here's why... it would take many people.. perhaps hundreds, or thousands, to pull it off. Are you going to tell me that NOT EVEN ONE of those conspirators would be willing to expose the who scheme? Think about what a hero that person would be to the Left! Think about how much publicity...favorable publicity this person would get from the mainstram media! Sorry people, but the simple fact is that Kerry was probably the wrong candidate, and he most certainly ran a lame race.

What we need to do NOW is find a way to connect with those open-minded individuals and GET THEM to our side!

[Time for change]

141. Kerry did NOT lose the popular vote

See Jonathon Simon's paper. The final NEP exit poll, with a sample size of over 13,000, and a MOE of 0.4%, shows Kerry with a 2.6% lead over Bush.

To consider how that can be, when the "official" election results show Bush with a 2.8% lead, a partial explanation is given by the Conyers report. But also consider this: Clint Curtis, a computer programmer, has testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he wrote computer programs, under orders from his employer, to transfer votes from Kerry to Bush in Florida. The government employee who was leading an investigation into Curtis' allegations was found dead in his hotel room of a "suicide". What percent of computer programmers who were told to do this do you think would have the courage to come forward with that information?

[I_Love_Oregon]

143. It's a stretch..

I have not read the articles you've mentioned. But I doubt they amount to much. If there was any substance to the allegation, the mainstrream media WOULD BE ALL OVER IT. Scooping a story like this would forever cement that news oganiztion to the level of the Wash. Post w/ Watergate.

I'm a computer programmer myself. I read the article about how easy it is to change the vote count a few weeks back, with the guy demonstrating how it could be done. It was a farse... completely ridiculous.

Move on (.org) people!! This focus on the past IS GOING TO KILL US!

[Chi]

145. No Offense, but...

Heya I_Love_Oregon
If you really believe this..
"If there was any substance to the allegation, the mainstrream media WOULD BE ALL OVER IT."

The massive voter suppression in Ohio would have made the news (along with countless other negative stories about this administration).
Unless your saying it (Ohio suppression) didn't happen either?

Your absolute faith in the MSM is misplaced, IMHO.

Thanx in Advance

[I_Love_Oregon]

146. a scoop worth scooping

I'm saying the problems with voting were NOT based on a conspiracy. I flatly deny any voter suppression occured. If you and anyone else who thinks suppresion ocurred can step back ang give the situation an honest evaluation, you will see that the evidence is very, very thin for conspiracy believers to stand on.

You MUST keep in mind that the counties in question in Ohio are CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS! Just as we saw in Florida 4 years ago, it's DEMOCRATS who control the voting aparatus of these counties with large Democratic majorities. Blackwell DOES NOT CONTROL local elections! Were there too few machines? It looks that way. But this is due to an extremely LARGE voter turnout, and literally hundreds of candidates and measures to pick through.

Bottom line, the system should be improved, but conspiracy...I think not! And further more, obsessing over it DOES OUR SIDE NO GOOD, and makes it LESS LIKELY that we will prevail the next time.

[Chi]

148. Wow

"I flatly deny any voter suppression occured. If you and anyone else who thinks suppresion ocurred can step back ang give the situation an honest evaluation, you will see that the evidence is very, very thin for conspiracy believers to stand on."

That pretty much covers it for me.
You said it didn't happen, so I guess it didn't (no need for proof).

You should read your tag line sometime, I think you just hit the ground doing 170mph.

[I_Love_Oregon]

152. I've done my research

Instead of relying on obvious sources, I suggest "opening your mind" and making a truly honest assessment of the situation. Where does one start?? I'm sure everyone here knows the Ohio vote was RE-COUNTED, right? Here's the results:

<snip>
A recount of the presidential election in Ohio that was finished on Tuesday showed that President Bush won the election here by about 300 fewer votes than initially ... The recount of Ohio's 88 counties showed that Senator John Kerry gained 734 votes, with Mr. Bush picking up 449 after...
</snip>
NYTimes
Sorry, but that still leaves bush with a lead of 117+ thousand votes.

How about some more:


<snip>
There are many conspiracy theorists opining these days. There are many allegations of fraud. But this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won. The Kerry-Edwards campaign has found no conspiracy and no fraud in Ohio, though there have been many irregularities that cry out to be fixed for future elections. Senator Kerry and we in Ohio intend to fix them. When all of the problems in Ohio are added together, however bad they are, they do not add up to a victory for Kerry-Edwards. Senator Kerry's fully-informed and extremely careful assessment the day after the election and before he conceded remains accurate today, notwithstanding all the details we have since learned."
</snip>
Kerry's lead attorney in Ohio, Daniel J. Hoffheimer

<snip>
Election officials watched Monday as a technician repeated a repair he had made to a vote tallying computer, then announced they had found no evidence of any sort of tampering, despite a congressman's request for an FBI probe.

Observers, including a Green Party representative who had sought a presidential recount, agreed the procedure did not alter the Election Day vote total in the county, Hocking County Prosecutor Larry Beal said.

"Everybody felt better," he said.

Questions about the integrity of the machine arose when an employee of TRIAD Governmental Systems Inc., the company that wrote the voting software used across much of Ohio, arrived Dec. 10 to inspect Hocking County's tabulating machine.
</snip>
AP story
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041221/D873QB180.html


The list can go on and on.....

[Time for change]

154. Have you read Conyers' report?

How can you use the "recount" in Ohio to make the case that there was no voter suppression? Have you read in the Conyers report about the numerous tricks that were used to force the sample recounts to conform exactly to the machine recounts so that a full hand recount of the counties would not have to be done? Are you aware that only one county in Ohio had a full hand recount?

[I_Love_Oregon]

155. SNAP OUT OF IT!

Damn it, just because you (or I, or anyone else) have a D next to our name doesn't mean we have to buy into this nonsense! This must be Groundhog day or something!

Don't you see this is exactly what the other side wants us doing? We spend all our energy bitching about stolen elections, and spend no time finding ways to get over the top. Randi Rhodes and others like to talk about how "they" have "drank the coolaid", but geez, I think some of us have too! SNAP OUT OF IT, DEMOCRATS!!

It's gonna do us no good to continue down this path. The election is over, and stewing about it for the next 4 years is a recipe for disaster. Question, who wants to regain the White House and turn this frick'n country around?? I do, and this inane focus on sketchy evidence of stolen elections is gonna kill us!

If Florida... which was far, far closer than Ohio will ever be, didn't help our cause in terms of focusing on a stolen election, than for the love of God, step off the merry-go-round!

[Time for change]

156. WE'RE NOT STEWING ABOUT IT

We're trying to expose the fraud so that it doesn't happen again -- so that we don't have a one party system in this country. Nothing else we do matters much, as long as election fraud is allowed to go unnoticed and unaddressed. So I suggest that you snap out of it.

[electropop]

118. I think I responded to this the other day

Your friend appears to have used the post-corruption exit polls, rather than the early (accurate) ones.

[Time for change]

125. All of his reasons are pure crap

1. They were not taken primarily from metropolitan areas

2. In the national exit poll sample, Kerry won by 9% among women, and he lost by 4% among men. The only way to get a Bush victory out of that would be if more than twice as many men as women voted. If the sample contained equal amounts of men and women, that would give Kerry a victory of 2.5%. Since slightly more women than men were sampled (probably because more women voted), Kerry won by the national exit poll by 2.6% instead of 2.5%. Either way, he won.

3. Exit polls are a scientific sampling. Almost all scientific studies use sampling to come to their conclusions, rather than test the whole population. So if he's right that it's not possible to closely approximate the raw vote from exit polls, that's tantamount to saying that science can't give us information about anything. Obviously, if an election was very close, the exit polls can't determine who won. But this election was not very close.

[troubleinwinter]

128. Your "friend"

did NOT "debunk" Exit Polls.

Definition: To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims.

He accused people of being "delusional" and concluded "I don't believe..."

That is not having "debunked" them.

[LA lady]

144. Exit Polls

All my repuke "friends" say they were told to lie on the exit polls; but then admit they were never polled!!

[Time for change]

159. I say they're lying about being told to lie

There's no plausible reason that they would be told that. Why would any Republican want to add fuel to the idea that the Bush Presidency is not legitimate?

[ottozen]

139. Tell them that Nostradamus has told us

The false message, by a fraudulent
election,
Shall be stopped from going about
the town,
Voices shall be bought, and a
chapel tinted with blood,
by another, who contests the rule.

Century VIII
Quatrain 20

Henry C. Roberts, translator

A good Catholic prophecy might do the trick.

[super simian]

153. Statistics have no precedent...

...for evidence of fraud in a U.S. election. So if your premise is that there was no election fraud, statistical evidence will not convince you. That means * was your candidate and you want to believe that he was elected fair and square. You have a friend in Al Franken!

:wtf:

On the other hand, if your premise is that there WAS election fraud 2004, then the exit poll discrepancies add to a preponderance of evidence supporting that premise.

[Hugin]

157. Some points for your friend...

I'd ask...

Why were, not most... But, all of the discrepancies in favor of
Bush.

How come "The Bloggers" (Have you noticed that term is being
worked in much the same way as "liberal") were correct about
the CBS memos... Incorrect about the exit polls... and then
magically correct again about the extent of the tsunami? There's
probably more of these inconsistencies, but, I haven't found them
all.

If the results of the actual polling were correct slightly (I
do mean EVER SO SLIGHTLY) more than every other person in line
at the polls should have been a RW zelot... I didn't see this. Did
you?

How many of his/her right wing friends were challenged at the poll?

Did any of his/her friends cast a provisional ballot?

There's more... But, now that the senate Dems have caved like a
house of cards. Does it matter?

(edited to add: EVER SO SLIGHTLY)