Naysayers, its time to take your strawmen elsewhere.

[TruthIsAll]

Yes, I admit.
I'm not an expert.
I'm just a truthseeker.
Who knows Excel.
And knows when I'm being scammed.

No point in arguing with me anymore.
Argue with these guys.
They are the real experts.

I'm TIA.
And I approve this message.

http://www.uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University

Also Peer Reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of statisticians and independent reviewers.

Press Contact: Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes, Vice President [e-mail]

[RaulVB]

1. The academic credentials of the people in this list are amazing

I strongly suggest to watch the developments on this topic, because the truth is about to be even more evident!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. Enough already!!!

I'm really getting tired of saying...
"TIA YOU RULE!!"

[opihimoimoi]

3. You is Da Man... TIA Rules.....:o)

[BrklynLiberal]

4. The truth shall make us free!!!!!

[roseBudd]

5. Computers count the votes, so no one can see, They claim Bush won I say

prove it to me!

[RaulVB]

6. BTW, that goes for me too

I'm done with the arguments.

The individual(s) trying to debunk the exit polls must contact the people named on the list posted by TIA.

[fasttense]

7. We are living in right wing bizarro world.

Where Democratic votes disappear overnight and our "Free Press" hides the truth and distorts reality. I sure as hell am glad I am not living through these times without the INTERNET. I would have never known others were out there like me who know what reality and truth are really like. Thanks for being there.

[RaulVB]

8. Kick (n/t)

[Acryliccalico]

9. Kick

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[RaulVB]

10. Kick (n/t)

[understandinglife]

11. A big TBO;24/7 kick (nt)

BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION;24/7

(and in case you need to know why http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01467.htm )

[bleever]

12. Great God A-mighty. The highlight of this fantastic paper comes at the

end where they declare their intention to create and analyze a database of precinct-level data for the 2004 election in order to do a mathematical analysis of it.

Other highlights for me:

HIGHER response rates to exit polls in Bush-leaning precincts, which Edison-Mitofsky fails to point out is demonstrated by their own data, and which blows the whole responder bias issue away;

E-M claims that there is no skew related to type of machine used, but fails to back it up, while the data suggests just the opposite;

E-M go out of their way to say it must be their fault, and their unsubstantiated hypotheses about why they got it wrong make it appear that their own analysis has interests other than the purely scientific and mathematical.

Also, it feels REALLY good to read someone saying it straight out:

Final polls showed Kerry won by 3%

without talking about "adjusted polls" or how they "initially" showed him winning.


Thank you TIA for everything you've done to get us to this place.


:thumbsup:

[rhite5]

13. This is exciting news to me -- the database of precinct level data!

[Wilms]

14. Kick

Truth Is Alarming!

Thanks, TIA.

[johnaries]

15. Thanks for sticking to your guns and the FACTS!

:yourock:

[frictionlessO]

16. a must read!! kicked for a lil clarity!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :dem: :dem: :dem:

[davidgmills]

17. Where is that Mystery pollster's credentials?

Oh yeah, I forgot, he's got a website. Makes him special you know.

[fasttense]

31. And he's (mystery pollster) working on his masters so

that makes him smarter than nine Phd's.

[bleever]

18. Kicking for something you should not miss! Read, discuss...

etc.

:thumbsup:

[Acryliccalico]

19. Kick n/t

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Stevepol]

20. Right on, TIA. Ignore the trolls and freepers trhing to tangle up words!

We've got the credentials, and more are on the way I would suspect. Keep the faith.

[Bill Bored]

21. Bruce O'Dell?

I assume he's not related to Wally right?

[Carolab]

46. I don't think so.

He's a Minnesotan, from St. Paul. Very blue area (my town).

[understandinglife]

22. This belongs on the front page everyone -- nominate away!!! (nt)

THE bush OPPOSITION;24/7

[Melissa G]

23. Kickin for truth!

[marions ghost]

24. mathematicians and statisticians...

:toast: you rock

thanks for this article, TIA
Glad to see this refute that argument about "more Kerry voters participated in the poll than B* voters..."

keep us posted--I know you will

[Old Mouse]

25. Excellent, TIA! n/t

[ROH]

26. Very interesting report! (n/t)

[RockStar]

27. Kick

[New Earth]

28. notice the naysayers aren't replying to this thread?

:shrug: :hi:

[loudsue]

29. They damn well better not!! I'm sick of those

..... ooops! Don't wanna break any rules here!

TIA :yourock: !!! Keep up the good work! :loveya:

:kick::kick::kick:

[Peace Patriot]

30. I'm all for kickin', nominatin' for the Nobel Peace Prize and...

...10 foot headlines, but would someone PA-LEEZE put a better title on this post (suggested earlier) : "NINE PH.D'S CALL FOR FULL INVESTIGATION OF 2004 ELECTION."

Here's their conclusion:

"Summary

"As citizens in a democracy, we have an abiding interest in the integrity of the election process.

"The Edison/Mitofsky report confirms there were large differences between their exit polls and the official results of the 2004 presidential election – much more so than in previous elections. The national exit poll indicated a 3 point victory for Kerry; whereas the official election results indicated that he lost by 2.5%, a difference of 5.5%.

"The Edison/Mitofsky report fails to substantiate their hypothesis that the difference between their exit polls and official election results should be explained by problems with the exit polls. They assert without supporting evidence that (p. 4), 'Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.' In fact, data included within the report suggest that the opposite might be true.

"Their analysis of the potential correlation of exit poll errors with voting machine type is incomplete and inadequate, and their report ignores the alternative hypothesis that the official election results could have been corrupted.

"The Edison/Mitofsky report states (p.12), “We need to do more investigation into the causes of the statistical skew in the exit poll data for the general election.” USCountVotes agrees, and we suggest that that investigation extend to the official vote count tallies. In this context, USCountVotes affirms our mission to create and analyze a database containing precinct-level election results for the entire United States in order to do a thorough mathematical analysis of the 2004 election results.

"We invite all those who care about democratic processes in this country to join us in fully investigating and explaining what really happened in the 2004 Presidential election."

[sportndandy]

32. Nay!

I mean Kick!

[L. Coyote]

33. Naysayer response.

Let's not use these apples to justify your oranges.

This paper is about the report, not about the numbers used in TIA's postings. They are completely different sets of numbers.

Criticizing TIA's numbers, methods, and conclusions, esp. those wild probabilities, does not an Exit Poll Discrepancy strawman make!

[TruthIsAll]

34. Math Guys: Are the ODDS 1 in a TRILLION or 1 in 10 MILLION?

I calculated the ODDS of the exit poll deviations as 1 in a
trillion.
In their latest paper, US Count Votes (USCV) calculates it as
1 in 10 million.

HOWEVER, THE ANALYSES ARE IN ESSENTIAL AGREEMENT. 
THE ODDS ARE "ASTRONOMICAL".

My probability could very well be too low. But based on the
data and calculated state MOE's, the probability calculation
is correct.

The fantastic USCV paper does not provide the actual exit poll
and final vote deviations used in the analysis (only the
results).

This post seeks to determine possible reasons for the
discrepancy in probabilities. In fact, they are much closer
than they might appear, as shown below.  

If anyone with statistical expertise is reading this, please
jump in with comments. MathGuy, are you there?

USCV (Freeman)  and I use slightly different methods (MOE
deviations vs. t-statistcs):
-I calculated that 15 states exceeded the MOE in favor of
Bush, each with 2.5% probability.
-USCV calculated that 7 of 50 states have t-values below -2.7,
each with less than 1% probability.

We both use the Binomial probability function. 
How did USCV calculate the exit poll deviations?

I do not have access to the USCV exit poll vs. vote deviation
data.
My calculations are based on exit poll data downloaded by
Simon (2-party adjusted) vs. the final vote. I use the
deviations and the MOE, calculated from the exit poll sample
size.

If the USCV deviation data differs from mine, that could
account for the discrepancy between their calculated odds (1
in 10 million) and mine (1 in 1 trillion).

From the bottom of Page 2 in the USCV report:
"Seven of fifty states have t values less than -2.7,
meaning that each of them has LESS than a 1% probability of
having the reported difference between exit polls and election
results occurring by chance. The binomial probability that 7
of 50 should be so skewed is LESS than 1 in 10 million. A full
comparison of the exit polls with the null distribution via a
Shapiro-Wilk test yields a probability that is astronomically
small"	

The seven (7) individual probabilities are not given. 	
We only know that EACH is less than 1%.	

USCV states that "a full comparison of the exit polls
with the NULL distrution (blue curve) via the Shapiro-Wilk
test yields a probability that is ASTRONOMICALLY small".
Is the probability in comparison to the 1 in 10 million odds
they give? Or is it the same?Would the test yield
probabilities closer to 1 in a trillion?

Assuming, conservatively, a 1% probability for each of the
seven (7)states (we know it is less), then the probability is
given by:	

Prob = 1 - BINOMDIST(6,50,0.01,TRUE)	
Probability  =	6.85284E-07
so the odds are 1 in 1,459,249.

Since the probabilities are LESS than 1%, that could account
for the difference between the above 1 in 1.45 million odds
and the "less than 1 in 10 million" which they
claim.

In fact, if 1 state were added to the seven, the odds would
become:  1 in 27 million.
TWO additional states (a total of nine) would lower the odds
to:
1 in 14 BILLION.

Here is a probability table for various N:

St      Probability	 Odds
N	N > "T"	  T < (-2.7)
5	0.000145689	 6,864
6	1.08968E-05	 91,770
7	6.85284E-07	 1,459,249

The probability rapidly declines as N increases…		

8	3.69316E-08	 27,077,101
10	7.13284E-11	 14,019,663,602
11	2.6098E-12	 383,170,938,646
12	8.57092E-14	 11,667,356,547,592
13	2.88658E-15	 346,430,740,566,961
14	0	           #DIV/0!
		
.......................................................

My analysis is based on the Exit Poll margin of error.		
N = 15 of 50 states exceeded the MOE (each with .025
probability) in favor of Bush. NONE did so for Kerry.		

the probability for at least 15 states to exceed the MOE is:
Prob = 1-BINOMDIST(14,50,0.025,TRUE)= 9.166E-13	
The odds are 1 in 1,090,988,281,824	

     Probability	 Odds
N	N > MOE	 N > MOE
5	0.008132778	 123
6	0.001510773	 662
7	0.000237311	 4,214
8	3.2064E-05	 31,188
10	3.92003E-07	 2,551,003
11	3.61654E-08	 27,650,776
12	2.98705E-09	 334,778,890
13	2.22187E-10	 4,500,703,425
14	1.49595E-11	 66,847,251,840
15	9.166E-13	 1,090,988,281,824

[anaxarchos]

44. 1% Probability is probably TOO conservative...

1-BINOMDIST(6,50,0.0075,TRUE)=1.00519E-07 or just under 1 in 10 million.

[TruthIsAll]

40. Those "wild" probabilities have NEVER been disputed.

1) The use of the binomial distribution to compute the probabilties is correct and has been confirmed by Freeman et al.

I have used the Excel function to calculate:
= 1- binomdist(n-1, 50,.025, true) where
N= 15, the number of states deviating beyond the MOE to Bush.
50 = total number of states
.025= the probability that the MOE is exceeded in any one state.

2) The exit poll deviations are correct.
No one has disputed them as far as I know.

3) The MOE (and standard deviation) calculation is correct.
MOE= 1/sqrt(N), where N is equal to sample-size.

There has been some controversy on this, but I believe the calculation is solid. Although some have claimed an exit poll cluster-effect (30%) adjustment must be made to the MOE, Mitofsky in his report does not question the random-selection.

Even assuming a "cluster effect", it is negated by the proven historical accuracy of exit polls vs. pre-election polls, since there are no undecided voters to deal with.

[Zan_of_Texas]

35. Okay, this article holds water!

Thanks for posting, TIA! (But please, I'm begging you, don't argue 10 million vs. umpti trillion.)

The chart on difference between voting types alone is worth the price of admission.

The report shows differences in WPE {within precinct error} for different types of voting equipment (p. 40). Precincts with paper ballots showed a median WPE of -0.9, consistent with chance, while all other technologies were associated with unexplained high WPE:

Type of equipment
used at polling place
. . . . . . . . . Median WPE Overall
Paper ballot . . . . . . . -0.9
Mechanical voting machine -10.3
Touch screen . . . . . . .-7.0
Punch cards . . . . . . . -7.3
Optical scan . . . . . . .-5.5


Source, as you point out:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD, Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics,
Steven F. Freeman, PhD, Brian Joiner, PhD, Frank Stenger, PhD,
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD, Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate,
Paul F. Velleman, PhD, Victoria Lovegren, PhD, Campbell B. Read, PhD:

"Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report,"
US Count Votes
http://www.uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

[TruthIsAll]

37. I am not arguiung. I love the report. I just want to see the numbers.

I'm just used to getting it all out in the open when it comes to providing methodology, input data and assumptions.

I am not being critical here.
Just looking for answers, even if they mean I am wrong..

[k8conant]

36. These people found the same errors I saw and more...

I'd hope someone will listen to them. (Specifically, I saw that the Edison-Mitofsky report presumed what it purported to prove--and didn't--about response rate and paper ballot vs. machine voting methods).
I'm not a statistician but I understand logic and proof.

[deacon2]

38. Thanks, TIA

It pays to stick to your guns. I have been involved in a project the past two years which required a fair amount of semiotics. At first it was just a hunch, a small bit of pattern recognition on a vast wall of confusion. My colleagues scoffed at me, to say the least. But now the validations are becoming conclusive and the software is being written to the "revealed" rules and analysis. Mathematics is your preferred method of communication, but I recall when you were willing to walk the plank because your gut told you something just wasn't right and you had the smallest seeds of analysis to support this "outlandish" notion. It must be bittersweet to be upheld in the idea that our vote was undermined by these criminals again. I salute your intuition and I grieve for our democracy in the same breath.

Thanks again for your patriotism.

[Lostnote03]

39. Close to 600 Constitutional Law instructors stated in the NY Times that

......the Felonious Five had decided a National Election.......Maybe the Mathematical elite will chime in and be more effective....

[Peace Patriot]

41. "The Felonious Five"???

[SophieZ]

43. "Felonious Five" were the five on the Supreme Court who

gave Bush the presidency in 2004.

Arguably, any of the five could be judged the "swing vote." I like to think that if Clarence Thomas had been blocked from confirmation, he wouldn't have been on the court and who knows, maybe the vote would've gone the other way. Who knows.


STEAL ONE PRESIDENCY, GET ONE FREE!

[ROH]

42. Any link, please? (n/t)

[bobbieinok]

45. check this out........

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/bushvsgore.htm#lawyers

the first link at this site is

673 Law Professors Denounce Bush v. Gore Ruling

I get message that link is no longer available

[Chi]

47. Here is a link to an article about it.

Best I could find so far.

"The decision sent a shock wave through the legal community. Some 673 law professors from 173 law schools signed a statement asserting that "by stopping the vote count in Florida, the US Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not judges of a court of law." Professor Robert Post, then teaching constitutional law at Stanford, wrote that the decision made him feel "shame" before his students. There rose up before his eyes "a searing and disorienting vision of a world without law."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-14.htm

Search with this "673 Law Professors", for more info.
I could not find a NYT article for it, but I would think one exists.

[ROH]

49. Thank you

It's also interesting to look at the comments from Justice Stevens on the Bush v. Gore case. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens concluded:

"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent."

--------------------------------------

The dissent of Justice Ginsburg, after a rather scathing opinion, concluded with the words "I dissent" rather than the standard "I respectfully dissent", a rare breach of convention:

"Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

I dissent."

[Chi]

51. Not a problem...

Glad I could help.
Thanx for the graf, I didnt have time to read it all.

I have read the dissents before, and lost all faith in the Gov't after doing so.
'We the People', are not in control anymore, that much is obvious.

[NationalEnquirer]

48. Now DATS what I'm talkin bout!

This is EXACTLY, seriously, the smoking gun kind of thing I needed!

[myschkin]

50. The next field

TIA, maybe you should concentrate now on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x310364

Thanks.