Report on Election Irregularities Refutes Exit Poll "Explanation"

[CottonBear]

BREAKING NEWS: Report on Election Irregularities Refutes Exit Poll "Explanation"
New report by prominent statisticians and vote-analysis experts refutes "explanation" for exit poll discrepancy, urges investigation of US presidential election.

CONTACTS:

Zack Kaldveer, Communications Director, CASE America, 510-938-2664

Susan Truitt, President, CASE America, 614-270-5239

Joan Krawitz, Executive Director, CASE America, 847-962-5290

NEW
REPORT BY NATION’S PROMINENT STATISTICIANS AND VOTE-ANALYSIS EXPERTS REFUTES
EDISON/MITOFSKY ‘EXPLANATION’ FOR EXIT POLL DISCREPANCY, URGES INVESTIGATION
OF US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Experts conclude unprecedented 5.5% discrepancy between exit polls
and final tallies indicate possible systematic, nationwide shift of the vote

(US) –
A new study (See report at www.USCountVotes.org)
was released today co-authored by prominent statisticians and vote-analysis experts from a diverse range of Universities including Notre Dame, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Temple. Their study strongly refutes the ‘explanation’by pollster Edison/Mitofsky (E/M) that their exit polls (Kerry winning by 3%) differed so widely from the final certified tally (Bush by 2.5%)due to Kerry voters’ answering pollsters questions at a higher rate than Bush voters. The US Count Votes report “debunks” this hypothesis and adds to the mounting evidence that the answer to the exit poll mystery lies
in the vote counting, not the accuracy of the exit polls.

“The new Edison/Mitofsky report fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that Kerry voters participated in exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters, or that exit polling errors caused exit polls to favor Kerry by 3% when Bush won the election by 2.5%,” said Kathy Dopp,,President, US Count Votes. “The possibility that the overall vote count was substantially corrupted must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly."

Among the revelations uncovered in the study was that the response to exit pollsters,was actually higher in precincts that strongly favored Bush than in those that strongly favored Kerry. This contradicts the E/M hypothesis that
Kerry voters’ tended to cooperate more, and suggests that if anything, the exit polls may have been skewed towards President Bush, not Senator Kerry.

more...

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/02/01/breaking_news_report_on_election_irregularities_refutes_exit_poll_explanation.php#more

[xynthee]

1. KICK!!

I'm sending to the MSM. I'm sure they'll get right on it!!

[CottonBear]

2. I'm sure MSM can't wait to report on this!

:eyes: (sarcasm off)

[Hugin]

4. I can hear them running for the phone banks...

NOT! ;)

[CottonBear]

3. delete. dupe.

[Hugin]

5. Scooped by SpongeBob... n/t

[Botany]

7. No way they touch this story .......

....... not with Michael Jackson's story to fill up the air with.

:bounce:

BUT BUSH IS EVIL .... KEEP UP THE FIGHT.

[Igel]

6. Um ... there's a statement of fact and a claim.

Don't confuse the two.

"The new Edison/Mitofsky report fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that Kerry voters participated in exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters, or that exit polling errors caused exit polls to favor Kerry by 3% when Bush won the election by 2.5%,” said Kathy Dopp,,President, US Count Votes. “The possibility that the overall vote count was substantially corrupted must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly."

Failing to provide evidence of a thing does not mean the explanation is false. M. wasn't providing a refereed paper to convince sceptics, presenting iron-clad arguments and argumentation. That would run into the hundreds of pages and involve presenting reams of data. Since he didn't do that, I have to assume that wasn't his goal. His report was to provide a plausible explanation on why his early polls were so far off, given the historical record, and to examine possible sources of the error.

Had M. taken the authors' assumption as a viable alternative, M. would have been hard put to say much about it. His poll wasn't designed to show fraud or lack of it (although it might be able to say something about turnout, assuming the poll interviewers saw all the people leaving the polling station).

M. was stuck with his assumptions. If the other people wanted him to pursue their agenda, they should have paid him. Criticising somebody because they don't do the research you want only works if you're a somewhat pathological dissertation advisor.

[seaclyr]

8. Okay, so one can't expect that much from Mitofsky, but..

nor should he be peddling these bogus, hand-waving arguments about higher levels of Democratic participation in the exit polls, for which there appears to be no shred of evidence. In other words, if you can't expect him to engage in additional, unpaid science, nor should you expect him to come up with these nonsensical non-scientific assertions that many people will treat as if it's an explanation because he's an "expert."

[Chi]

9. A method of scientific study...

A method of scientific study based on an assumption (there were no counting errors, or fraud) then backed by that assumption (since the final results say there were more Bush voters, then I oversampled Dem's)
.....whats wrong with that?

Why should his report, have to explain how he came to his conclusion his Exit Polls were off cause of his sampling errors.

Why should his report be held to the same scrutiny that other 'experts'
reports are held to.

It's just NOT fair.

(Heya seaclyr <waves>)

[seaclyr]

10. Whatever was I thinking of?

Apologies to all for being just so unkind and unreasonable toward Mr. Mitofsky and his hard-working crew. Thank you Chi for pointing out my error. :)

[L. Coyote]

12. Agreed. He is conducting his own business, and trying to stay in biz

without getting sued for non-performance. He is justifying his work to his paying clients.

But read between the lines!!

[Fly by night]

11. Am I the only one who feels Mitofsky intentionally contradicted himself?

Re this statement: "Among the revelations uncovered in the study was that the response to exit pollsters was actually higher in precincts that strongly favored Bush than in those that strongly favored Kerry."

It struck me as odd that Mitofsky would intentionally and conveniently provide a table in his report (page 37) that completely contradicted the principal (some would say only) argument he advanced for his "skewed" results.

While I have no love lost for Mitofsky (having written him myself on November 4 and many times thereafter asking him to explain the anomolies in his exit polls -- without ever receiving a response), I do find it interesting that he would hand us the rebuttal to his thesis so easily. Otherwise, we would have had to wait weeks or months until the raw data are released to have confronted him with the facts.

Again, I find his behavior very interesting. Perhaps the grief he received from his professional colleagues and from DUers made a difference. Or maybe the "moral values" mafia finally released the family members they were holding hostage.

[L. Coyote]

13. So many threads on this topic, from another this quote:

Renowned US pollster Warren Mitofsky told Research: “The Edison/Mitofsky report was not investigating election fraud. We were looking at how to guarantee the accuracy of exit poll data.”

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x313904