Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Voter fraud??" Hey Karl, here's "THE math": Analytical explanation of 2004/2006 Election Fraud.(X)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 03:36 PM
Original message
"Voter fraud??" Hey Karl, here's "THE math": Analytical explanation of 2004/2006 Election Fraud.(X)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks, kster.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh no, Thank you !!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Latest Update: April 10
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

Dec.12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy. Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred. Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data. And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. “Voter fraud” has been shown to be a non-existent distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”. Voters don’t fix elections, election officials do. The corporate media was quick to dismiss claims of election fraud as a left-wing “conspiracy theory” and the statistical polling analyses of “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers”.



The media never considered the possibility that the votes may have been miscounted and that the exit polls were essentially correct. They just took it for granted that the vote count was accurate (i.e. the election was fraud-free). After all, isn’t that why the exit poll results are always adjusted to match the vote count? But they never asked why the National Exit Poll had Kerry leading by a steady 51-48% at 4pm (8649 respondents), at 7:30pm (1107 respondents) and 12:22am (13047 respondents) only to see Bush win the 2pm Final (13660 respondents) by 51-48%. Of course, they never did an analysis which would have shown that the adjusted Final NEP weights were impossible and that the adjusted vote shares were implausible. And they would have come to the same conclusion as the spreadsheet-wielding bloggers: the election was stolen.



This is what Richard Morin , a Washington Post Staff Writer, wrote on Thursday, November 4, 2004:

“An Election Day filled with unexpected twists ended with a familiar question: What went wrong with the network exit polls?... In two previous national elections, the exit polls had behaved badly. Premature calls by the networks in Florida led to a congressional investigation in 2000. Two years later, a computer meltdown resulted in no release of data on Election Day…. Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use.….That is why the early leaks anger Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research, which conducted Tuesday's exit poll with Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and the Associated Press…. After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics”.



A dwindling number of naysayers continue to maintain that the comprehensive statistical analysis of 2004 pre-election/exit polls by a number of independent researchers does not provide convincing evidence that the election was stolen. To debunk the analysis, they have resorted to tortured explanations: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; returning Gore voters lied or forgot when they told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000; pre-election and exit polls are not pure random samples; exit polls are not designed to detect fraud in the United States; early exit poll results were misleading because women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry; the GOTV campaign headed by Karl Rove mobilized millions of Christian fundamentalists for Bush, etc. None of these explanations are supported by factual data and they have been thoroughly debunked.



They cited a post-election retrospective NES 600-sample survey as evidence that 7% of former Gore voters lied or forgot that they voted for him and told the 2004 exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000. This was simply due to a long-term “bandwagon effect”: Gore voters wanted to associate with the previous “winner”- Bush. But the naysayers forget that Bush had a 48.5% approval rating on Election Day and that Gore won the election by 540,000 votes. Why would more Gore voters lie or forget than Bush voters? Why would they claim to have voted for Bush knowing that he stole the election from Gore, thus nullifying their vote? Or did they forgive Bush because of his sterling job performance and 48.5% approval? You decide.



They noted a built-in Democratic bias in the exit polls. But they dismiss the fact that in every election approximately 3% of total votes cast are uncounted, mostly in heavily Democratic minority districts. Although Bush “won” Florida in 2000 by an “official” 537 votes, there were 180,000 spoiled ballots (3% of the total cast) and thousands of other provisional and absentees which were never counted. Since more than 65% of the spoiled ballots were intended for Gore, he clearly won the state by at least 60,000 votes. Gore’s nationwide margin was two million if all the votes cast had been counted. But we know that in 2004 over 90% of reported electronic vote switching incidents were from Kerry to Bush and that an exhaustive statistical study indicated that 6.15% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County. So it’s reasonable to assume that in addition to the uncounted votes, a certain percentage of Gore votes were switched to Bush. The 2000 election was not even close, although the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was.



They claimed that the vaunted 2004 Republican GOTV campaign brought Bush millions of new Christian fundamentalist votes. But they fail to note that according to the National Exit Poll, the Democrats have won first-time voters in the last four elections by an average 14% margin. Ruy Teixeira wrote about it in The Emerging Democratic Majority.



They rejected the assumption that late undecided voters would break for Kerry. But pollsters Zogby and Harris, who have a combined 60 years of polling experience, indicated they voted 67-75% for Kerry. The National Exit poll also reported that Kerry won a clear majority of undecided voters. But this was not unusual; historical evidence indicates that undecided voters break for the challenger over 80% of the time, especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day.



They dismissed the significance of the Bush 48.5% approval rating on Election Day. But all presidential incumbents with approval below 50% lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush I) while all incumbents over 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton). The near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and national poll average share is further evidence. The correlation was confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%.



They insisted that Bush led the pre-election polls. But they failed to consider undecided voters. Final Zogby polls had Kerry leading by 50-45% in nine battleground states. Assuming that he would capture 75% of the undecided vote, Kerry was projected to win all 9 states by 53-46%. He won just 5 and his average margin was only 50-49%. The margin of error was exceeded in six states - a 1 in 52 million probability.



They also failed to use weighted averages in calculating national vote share based on state polling, claiming that Bush led the weekly state poll (unweighted) average. But except for the first two weeks in September, Kerry led the national weighted average based on state voting population from July to Election Day. Kerry also led the monthly unweighted national pre-election polls all year. The final weighted average of 51 state polls (Kerry 47.88-46.89%) was confirmed by the unweighted average of 18 national polls (Kerry 47.17- Bush 46.89%).



They refused to accept the fact that both state and national projections in the Nov.1, 2004 Election Model had Kerry winning the popular vote by 51-48%. But the projections were confirmed by the 12:22am National Exit Poll which Kerry won by 51-48%. A Monte Carlo Simulation (5000 election trials) forecast that Kerry would win 320-337 electoral votes with 60-75% of the undecided vote - which he did if you believe the National Exit Poll and pollsters Zogby and Harris. The pre-election projections were confirmed in the Interactive Election Simulation Model by the state and national exit polls.



They overlooked the fact that 41 states favored Bush from the final pre-election polls to the recorded vote. But none of the 10 states which favored Kerry was a battleground state. Forty-three state red-shifted to Bush from the 12:22am exit polls. Oregon was the only battleground state which blue-shifted to Kerry – by less than one percent. It was also the only state in which all voting is done by mail. Was this all just a coincidence, a case of bad polling or a powerful indication that fraud occurred? You decide.



They cited “false recall” and non-response bias as explanations for the exit poll discrepancies. But they failed to account for the deviations between final pre-election state and national polls and the recorded vote. Exit poll non-response and false recall are not applicable to pre-election polls – and yet the pre-election polls matched the exits. The best evidence indicates that the “pristine” state and national exit polls were close to the true vote, unlike the final exit polls which were forced to match a corrupt vote count. All they can say is that the polls were wrong.



They hypothesized that the Final NEP 43 Bush / 37 Gore weights were due to “false recall” on the part of Gore 2000 voters who claimed to have voted for Bush 4 years earlier. But the weights were irrelevant and misleading since they were mathematically impossible. What is relevant is who the 2004 exit poll respondents said they voted for just minutes before.



They claimed that exit poll non-responders were Bush voters. But they cannot logically explain why a linear regression analysis showed that exit poll non-response increased going from the strongest Bush states to the strongest Kerry states, indicating that non-responders were most likely Kerry voters.



They said that the margin of error used in calculating probabilities of the exit poll discrepancies was too low. But even assuming a 50% “cluster effect”, the probabilities were still near zero. The exit poll discrepancy exceeded the margin of error in 16 states - all in favor of Bush. The probability: 1 in 19 trillion. Not a single state deviated beyond the MoE for Kerry.



They ridiculed the near 100% probability of a Kerry popular vote victory, claiming that the exit poll “cluster effect” and response bias invalidates the theoretical 1.0% margin of error. But a probability sensitivity analysis showed that even assuming a 50% increase in MoE, Kerry still had a 98% probability of winning a majority of the popular vote.



They maintained that exit polls are not accurate indicators since they are not perfect random samples. But pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the noted to the National Exit Poll that respondents were randomly-selected and that the margin of error was 1%. The MoE was confirmed for various exit poll samples in their NEP Methods Statement.



They claimed that the early exit polls were off and imply that the Final National Exit Poll was accurate. But the Final was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible weights and implausible vote shares. This implies that the recorded vote was fraud-free – not exactly a reality-based assumption.



They failed to appreciate the Law of Large Numbers and find nothing unusual about the fact that Kerry led the National Exit Poll by 51-48% at 4pm (8649 respondents), 7:30pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). But Bush won the 2pm Final NEP (13660) by 51-48% through the use of impossible weights and implausible vote shares which were required in order to match the recorded vote.



They ignored the astounding fact that all 22 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted from the exit poll to Bush and 12 deviated beyond the exit poll margin of error! But the probability of this occurrence is 1 in 32 trillion. The East is a vote-rich Democratic region and the most fertile ground for fraud. Of the 28 states outside the Eastern Time Zone, “only” 20 deviated to Bush while the margin of error was exceeded in “just” 4 states.



They dismissed the 12:22am NEP timeline (13047 respondents) which indicated that 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004 while 10% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry and claimed that twice as many Gore voters (14.6%) defected to Bush than Bush voters (7.2%) defected to Kerry. But this is not plausible if you believe that the Bush 48.5% Election Day approval rating means anything. This is just a last-ditch feeble attempt to justify the Bush recorded margin. And it means that they have no case.



They failed to explain how Bush found 16mm new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62mm in 2004. He had 50.5mm votes in 2000. But only about 46mm returned to vote in 2004. The decrease was due to two factors: 1) approximately 1.7mm Bush voters died (0.87% annual mortality rate) and 2) an estimated 2.5mm did not vote (95% turnout). According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% or 10.8 of 26.3mm new voters. He needed 60% or 15.8mm to reach 62. The 19% discrepancy was 11 times the 1.72% margin of error. The probability of the discrepancy is ZERO. It’s important to note that a solid majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush an approval rating much lower than his total 48.5% average on Election Day 2004. His approval rating has declined almost 1% monthly since Sept. 11, 2001 and is currently at 32%.



They need to explain how Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004, yet won a solid 57-41% share of new voters. Kerry won first-timer voters by 55-43% as well as others by 61-37%. Compare this to 2000: Gore won the popular vote, yet lost new voters by 52-44%. Gore won first-time voters by 52-43%, but Bush won others by a whopping 71-26%.



They claimed that 7% of returning Gore voters told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000 because of a long-term “bandwagon effect”; they wanted to “associate with the winner”. But this was just a last-ditch attempt to explain the mathematically impossible “Voted in 2000” weights. Even if Gore voters they lied, it was irrelevant. What is relevant is who they said they voted for just a few minutes earlier. And 91% said they voted for Kerry.



They argued against the conclusion that the NEP “Voted in 2000” weights (Bush 43/Gore 37%) were impossible and claimed that it was standard operating procedure to re-weight demographics based on incoming votes. But how can 43% (52.6mm) of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004 have been Bush 2000 voters when he only had 50.5mm votes in 2000? Furthermore, since approximately 1.8mm Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election, the maximum number of Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004 was 48.7 million, assuming an impossible 100% turnout. This physical, incontrovertible fact drove the naysayers wild. The longer they tried to refute the logic, the sillier they looked.



They had to accept an inconvenient truth: the Final National Exit Poll inflated the Bush vote by at least 4 million. The weights were contrived to force the exit poll to match the corrupted recorded vote. Even though the weights were mathematically impossible, the exit-pollsters had no choice but to use them. And they hoped no one would notice.



After months of denial, they finally agreed that the Final 2pm NEP “How Voted in 2000” weights were impossible. They agreed to derived a set of feasible weights. But they had to compensate for the weights by inflating the Final NEP Bush vote shares in order to match the recorded count. This was necessary despite the fact that Final NEP Bush vote shares were already inflated in order to match the recorded vote. With feasible weights applied to the “pristine” 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 52.6-46.4% – a 7.7 million vote margin! Using feasible weights applied to the Final NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 51.2-48.4%. The 3.4 million vote margin more than reversed the Bush 3mm “mandate”!

They were forced to suggest this implausible Bush win scenario in the Democratic Underground Game thread:

1) 14.6% of Gore 2000 voters defected to Bush. But the 12:22am NEP reported 8%; it was increased to 10% in the Final in order match the vote.
2) Kerry won 52.9% of voters who did not vote in 2000. But the 12:22am NEP reported he won by 57-41%; it was reduced to 54-45% in the Final.
3) 7.2% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry. But the 12:22am NEP reported 10%; it was reduced to 9% in the Final.



They belittled a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which indicated that Kerry won all plausible scenarios of voter turnout and new voter share. But assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares and 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout, Gore voter turnout had to be 73% for Bush to tie Kerry and 64% to match the recorded 62-59mm vote.



They need to explain these implausible changes in Bush NEP vote shares from 2000 to 2004:

-The Bush share of females increased by 4.2% while his share of males decreased by 0.2%

-His share of white females increased by 5.0% while his share of white males decreased by 0.9%

-His share of non-white females increased by 4.0% while his share of non-white males increased by only 0.76%

-His share of female independents increased by 1.8% while his share of male independents decreased by 5.6%

Didn’t females vote 54-45% for Kerry? Didn’t over 90% of blacks vote for him? Weren’t independents for Kerry by 52-44%? Why would independent males defect to Kerry at triple the rate that independent females defected to Bush? Didn’t Nader voters break 3-1 for Kerry?



They neglected to ask why six of the eight states which deviated to Kerry from the exit polls were strong Bush states: TN (1.63), TX (1.65), SD (1.67), ND (2.51), KS (2.37) and MT (0.22). The exit poll discrepancies (shown in parenthesis) were all within the exit poll margin of error. But only two competitive states deviated to Kerry: OR (0.75) and HI (1.25). Is it just a coincidence that Oregon is the only state which votes exclusively by mail (100% paper ballots), and that any discrepancy in that state would be small and could favor either Bush or Kerry? And is it just a coincidence that Hawaii was not exactly a critical state?



They agreed that the vote-rich battleground states would decide the election. But was it just a coincidence that six deep-red states deviated to Kerry and not a single blue state? Was it because Bushco did not want to explain the 50-state red-shift? Did they disregard the six states knowing that Kerry would not come close to winning them? Is that why they focused on thwarting a nationwide blue-shift in competitive states? The beast was in the East, the rest were in the West.



They claimed that the raw exit poll data which have not been made public indicates that there was no tendency for Bush to do better in 2004 relative to 2000 (“swing”) than he did in the 2004 exit poll (“red-shift”). They presented their analysis in a swing vs. red-shift scatter chart and concluded from the flat regression line that the exit poll discrepancies had little effect and therefore fraud was unlikely. But they did not considering the following factors: According to the 2004 National Exit Poll, Kerry won 71% of returning Nader voters compared to 21% for Bush. A similar split would have increased Gore’s margin by 1.4mm. Assuming that 75% of approximately 3 million uncounted votes were for Gore, his margin increases by another 1.5mm. When added to his recorded 540,000 vote majority, Gore’s adjusted margin becomes 3.4mm. And that does not consider the effects of vote-switching. Thanks to Ohio, we know a lot more about vote-switching than we did in 2000. It’s very likely that Gore votes were switched to Bush. If 3% (1.5 million) were switched, then his final adjusted margin is 6.4 million: 3mm switched + 1.5mm uncounted + 1.4mm Nader + 0.54mm recorded.



They never normalized the 2-party state votes in calculating “swing”. But adjusted state swing (before vote switching) exceeded red-shift in 24 of the 43 states which deviated to Bush. Adjusted national swing was 3.0 (51.24-48.24). Based on the NEP How Voted in 2000 demographic, red-shift was 3.15 (51.24-48.09); based on Gender, it was 2.53 (51.24-48.71). But red-shift was just 1.75 (51.24-49.49) based on the weighted average state poll. This clearly indicates that the naysayer swing vs. red-shift argument is just another ruse meant to divert, confuse and mislead. With 3% vote-switching, Bush’s adjusted vote swing exceeded red-shift in 34 of the 43 red-shift states. A realistic linear regression analysis of swing vs. redshift shows that for every 1% increase in adjusted swing, red-shift increased by 0.6%.



They still maintain that the Ohio exit poll does not indicate fraud. But they ignored the massive documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, voter disenfranchisement. Not to mention that two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. They criticized the 12:22am Ohio exit poll (1963 respondents) which Kerry won by 52-48%, yet believe the 2:06pm Final (2020 respondents) in which demographic category vote shares were changed in favor of Bush to match the miscounted recorded vote. This was just like the final NEP in which vote shares were also changed to match a miscounted national vote. If the original weights were used, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels. How can they explain these Ohio exit poll anomalies?

-When Decided: Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%? Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the other 79%? Were there any Ohio pre-election polls which showed Bush leading by 10% at the end of September?

-Party ID: Democrat/ Republican weights changed from 38/35 to 35/40, a 7.9% shift. With the original 38/35 weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote, as opposed to his 8% at 12:22am.

-Ideology: Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/34 to 19/21, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote, as opposed to his 13% at 12:22am.

-Voted for Senate: Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate, as opposed to his 7% at 12:22am.



They ignored Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. Bush supposedly “won” Florida by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. But there was a 41- 37% Democratic registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) machine counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. In 2000, Bush “won” Florida by 547 votes, but Kerry must have won by at least 60,000, given his 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes. Kerry won TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47%, but Bush won OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Florida voter registration by party is consistent across TS and OS counties, so it’s not comparing apples and oranges. The total TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush (17,000 votes) and 0.31% for Kerry (12,000). But the Bush OS county share deviated by 9.0% (307,000) while Kerry’s discrepancy was 8.1% (278,000). The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%.



Why was there such a large vote share discrepancy in OS counties? Party ID weights for OS and TS counties were virtually the same. There was massive fraud in OS counties, but TS counties were hardly fraud-free. Assuming a 1.0% margin of error, the probability is 1 in 12.7 trillion that Kerry's total TS county vote share would exceed his total Florida share by 4.2%. Three distinct models indicate that Kerry won Florida by 221,000 votes. Two were based on voting machine type (optical scanners and touch screens). The models assume 2004 NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares with weights set to party registration percentage. Kerry won both scenarios by a total of … 221,000 votes. The third model was based on uncounted and switched votes applied to the 2004 recorded vote. Kerry wins by…. 221,000 votes. Considering that Kerry probably won 70,000 of 96,000 Nader 2000 votes (based on his 71% NEP share), he had a built-in 100,000 advantage on Election Day …assuming that all the votes were going to be counted.



They cited the final NY pre-election poll which Kerry won by 59-40 (matching the recorded vote) to support their argument that the pre-election polls did not match the exits (the NY exit poll was 64-35). But they failed to mention that the typical pre-election state poll has a 4% margin of error (600 respondents) while the corresponding exit poll has a 2-3% MoE, depending on the number of respondents so a 5% discrepancy between a given state pre-election and the corresponding exit poll is not unusual. In fact, the weighted average vote share of 51 state pre-election polls, adjusted for undecided voters, matched the weighted average exit poll vote share to within 1%.



They implied that the NY pre-election poll was accurate since it matched the recorded vote. But this is not plausible since the 2000 recorded vote was Gore 60-Bush 35-Nader 5 and the 2004 NEP reported that 10% of Bush2000 voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Assuming conservatively that the Bush/Gore defection rates were equal, the 59-40 recorded vote implies that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - an absolute impossibility. The NEP indicated that Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21. Allocating Nader 2000 votes and assuming equal defection rates, the 2004 recorded vote is Kerry 63-Bush 36. Allocating the 3% uncounted votes (75% Kerry/ 25% Bush) widens the vote split to 64-35, matching the exit poll. The True Vote Model determined that 7% of Kerry’s national votes were switched to Bush while a comprehensive analysis of total votes cast in Cuyahoga County (Ohio) showed that 6.15% were switched. Assuming that 4% of Kerry’s NY votes were switched, he won the state by 66-33%.



They have never explained why the Exit Poll Response Optimizer confirmed the USCV simulation. Both models analyzed summary exit poll data for 1250 precincts supplied by Edison-Mitofsky and independently debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. The Optimizer employed the Excel Solver algorithm to obtain a feasible 2-party vote share solution (Kerry 52.15-Bush 47.85%). The constraints included the actual recorded vote (Bush 51.24-Kerry 48.76%), along with response rates and within precinct error (WPE) categorized into five partisanship groupings: Strong Bush, Bush, Even, Kerry, Strong Kerry. The robust solution exactly matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll “Voted in 2000” demographic. Two independent mathematical methods applied to two distinct sets of national and precinct summary exit poll data produced the identical result.



They can try to refute the True Vote Model. The base case scenario determined that Kerry won by 66.1-58.4mm. The model was based on the 12:22am NEP vote shares, with feasible weights adjusted for 1) the 2000 recorded vote, 2) 3.5% mortality, 3) 95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004. It assumed that 2.74% of total votes cast were uncounted, based on the 2004 Election Census which reported that 125.7mm votes were cast. Only 122.3mm were recorded, therefore 3.4mm were uncounted. Assuming that Kerry won 2.6mm of the uncounted votes (a 75% share), then 4.5mm (6.8%) of total votes cast for Kerry must have been switched to Bush to match his 66.1-58.4mm margin. By allocating the 3.4mm uncounted votes to each state based on its racial mix, the model also determined that Kerry won 336 electoral votes. This matched the Election Model Monte Carlo Simulation which was based on final state polling and 5000 election trials.



Except for the notorious 2006 FL-13 congressional race in which 18,000 mostly Democratic votes were mysteriously missing, the evidence of massive fraud in the midterm elections is hardly mentioned in the corporate media. But a Pew 2006 Election Analysis describes voting “anomalies” and computer “glitches” that occurred in virtually every state. The fraud probably cost the Democrats 10-20 congressional seats.



The 2006 National Exit Poll “How Voted in 2004” weights were changed from 47 Bush / 45 Kerry at 7pm on Election Day to 49/43 in the Final NEP at 1pm on the following day. Once again, just like in 2004, the exit pollsters had to match the vote count by expanding the weight spread from 2% to 6%! This had a major effect in cutting the Democratic margin in half - from 55-43% to 52-46%. As noted earlier, the 2004 12:22am NEP “How Voted in 2000” Bush/Gore 41/39 weights were changed to 43/37 in the 2pm Final, turning a 51-48% Kerry victory into a 51-48% loss.



If plausible 49 Kerry/ 46 Bush weights based on the 2004 NEP were used, the TRUE Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120 pre-election Generic Poll trend line. Was this just a coincidence or another confirmation that the pre-election polls matched the 7pm National Exit Poll? You decide.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
28. The mystery of the final 5 million recorded votes
Edited on Sat Apr-28-07 11:15 PM by glengarry
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#LateVotes

Consider the final 5mm of the total 121.06 million votes recorded for Bush and Kerry. Bush won 51.5% of the initial 115.81mm. But Kerry won 54.6% of the final 5.26mm. Bush won the final recorded vote by 3mm (62-59), but he was leading by 3.5mm (59.65-56.16) at the 115.81mm mark.

Why would the Bush margin decline so quickly after the first 116mm votes? The 5mm late votes were spread all over the country. These are actual recorded votes, not a sample. No exit poll analysis; no response bias; no false recall.

What are the odds that Kerry would win the last 5mm votes by 54.6-45.4%, given that Bush was leading the 2-party vote by 51.5-48.5% at the 116mm mark? The probability of this discrepancy occurring due to pure chance is virtually ZERO.

Kerry exceeded his initial vote share in 38 states, including 15 of 19 battleground states. His vote share discrepancies were significant in the East, West and Midwest but near zero in the late-reporting Far West. This strongly suggests that election fraud was focused in the early-reporting states.

A false impression was created early that Bush was winning the popular vote. But the state and national exit polls indicated he was losing. The vote-rigging ended before the final 5 million votes were recorded since Bush had already “won” the electoral vote and had his 3.5mm popular vote "mandate". But after the final 5mm votes were recorded, the Bush margin declined by 0.5 million.

Here are the key states by region where
Vote: total late votes (in thousands)
Init: Kerry vote share at the 116mm vote mark
Late: Kerry vote share of the final 5mm votes
Diff: change in vote share (Late-Init)

Far West (virtually ZERO change in Kerry vote share)
...Vote Init Late Diff
AZ 354 44.7 44.7 0.0 > no change in Kerry share
CA 2424 55.2 54.4 -0.8 > slight 0.8% decline in Kerry share
WA 379 53.6 54.0 0.4 > slight 0.4% increase in Kerry share

West
...Vote Init Late Diff
CO 74 47.3 55.8 8.5 > Kerry won 55.8% of the final 74k votes (stolen?)
NV 8 48.7 50.4 2.7 > stolen?
NM 12 49.4 60.6 11.2 > Kerry won 60.6% of the final 12k (stolen?)

Midwest
...Vote Init Late Diff
IL 98 55.0 66.7 11.7 > Kerry won 66.7% of the final 98k (padded?)
IN 13 39.5 64.2 24.7
IA 14 49.5 62.2 12.7 > Kerry won 62.2% of the final 14k (stolen?)
MO 8 46.3 60.9 14.6 > Kerry won 60.9% of the final 8k (stolen?)

East
...Vote Init Late Diff
FL 19 47.5 50.4 2.9 > Stolen?
GA 45 41.6 46.3 4.7 > padded?
MD 183 56.2 60.1 3.9 > Kerry won 60.1% of the final 183k (padded?)
MA 14 62.7 72.4 9.7 > padded?
NJ 194 53.1 57.5 4.4 > Kerry won 57.5% of the final 194k (padded?)
NY 497 58.8 66.0 7.2 > Kerry won 66% of the final 497k (padded?)
OH 145 48.7 56.0 7.3 > Kerry won 56% of the final 145k (stolen?)
PA 92 51.1 59.0 7.9 > Kerry won 59% of the final 92k (padded?)
VA 105 45.6 52.4 6.8 > Kerry won 52.4% of the final 105k (padded?)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. Graph of Kerry's initial 95% vs. final 5% share of recorded state votes
Edited on Sun Apr-29-07 08:52 AM by glengarry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. One of the most straightforward questions is where * got 16 million new votes.
To paraphrase from the link in the OP, Bush got 50.5 million votes in 2000. Taking in to account mortality and turnout factors, 46 million of those came back to vote for him in 2004.

To get the 62 million votes in 2004, he would have needed 60% of new voters. But we know that a majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents whose approval of Bush was much lower than the national average of 48.5% on election day. And the National Exit Poll's 12:22 am data showed Bush getting 41% of the new voters.

While it's easy to devolve into an infinite regression of critiques of an analysis like this, it's much harder to offer a straightforward mathematical explanation of the notion that Bush actually got all those votes, which is why I suspect we see so much of the former, and none of the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. actually not
Edited on Thu Apr-12-07 02:20 PM by OnTheOtherHand
The "mystery" of 16 million new votes is one of those matters of attitude, I guess. Political scientists generally don't see a mystery. Obviously, some of the votes came from new voters, and some of them came from Gore voters. We can't know the exact proportions, because we can't count on people to report their past votes accurately. But as far as I can tell, no one here at MPSA is sitting around scratching their heads wondering how Bush could possibly have gotten 62 million votes.

One pretty good model suggests that Bush got about 42 million votes from Bush 2000 voters, about 7 million from Gore and other voters, and about 13 million from people who didn't vote in 2000. It's perfectly mathematically straightforward that those numbers add up to 62 million. The kicker is that some people refuse to believe that 6 million or more Gore voters could vote for Bush in 2004. But that isn't a mathematical argument -- that's just a leap of faith.

I only know of one study where Gore voters were reinterviewed: the NES panel study. In that study, 14% of the people who said in 2000 that they had voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted for Bush. No one has refuted that result. (ETA: Because scientific method is so unfamiliar to many, I will amplify: I'm not claiming that 14% is The Right Percentage. We cannot know what the right percentage is. But the evidence that it is plausible totally dominates the evidence that it isn't.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. If the standard is a preponderance of the evidence,
and the pretty good model you mention is an example, then I would have to disagree, because Bush getting 13 million votes from people who didn't vote in 2000 would mean that he got 63% of those voters.

And getting 7 million from self-reported Gore voters would mean that 15% of Gore voters deserted to Bush, a claim that exceeds even the final "adjusted" NEP rate of 10% by half.

I'm betting you have better examples, but respectfully this one does not seem conclusive to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. to review
(1) AFAIK no one ever claimed that Bush got 13 million votes from people who didn't vote in 2000. Honestly, that isn't even relevant.

(2) Actually, no one even claimed that Bush got 7 million votes from Gore voters. But I think probably around 6.5 million, yes.

(3) As I have explained here many times, the fallacy in reading Gore percentages off the NEP tables is that people do not correctly report their past votes. We know this, among other ways, because in the 2000-04 NES panel we can actually see that some of them changed their answers. One consequence (again, observable in the 2000-04 NES panel) is that some Gore voters who voted for Bush in 2004 reported having voted for Bush in 2000 as well. Similarly, some Bush 2000 voters who voted for Kerry report having voted for Gore.

(4) Here, once again, is a link to my paper which explores these issues in considerable detail. It includes extensive documentation of inaccurate reporting of past votes in other studies, including other exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Please clarify, so that I'm clear what you're saying.
"...no one ever claimed that Bush got 13 million votes from people who didn't vote in 2000."

I was responding to your post that "One pretty good model suggests that Bush got...about 13 million from people who didn't vote in 2000." Did I misunderstand that in some way?

And you say, "Actually, no one even claimed that Bush got 7 million votes from Gore voters. But I think probably around 6.5 million, yes. "

I was again referencing your previous post which said, "One pretty good model suggests that Bush got about...7 million from Gore and other voters."

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-13-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. ack, my mind fart on (1)
Sorry, I'm juggling two completely disparate sets of numbers. What I should have said was, I don't know anyone who claims that Bush got 63% of DNV voters (those who didn't vote in 2000).

If 13 million of DNV equals 63%, that implies about 20.5 million DNV voters. That's way low. It's hard to tell how way low. One of my models puts it closer to 27 million, which is not crazy given people's propensity to forget not having voted. (In the 2000-04 NES panel, about 38% of the people who said in 2000 that they hadn't voted, said four years later that they had.)

Yes, the difference between "Gore voters" and "Gore and other voters" accounts for the difference between the 6.5-ish million and the 7 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-13-07 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. by the way, about the disparate numbers--
You posed the question of where Bush got "16 million new voters." That isn't exactly the right question, because millions of Bush 2000 voters voted for Kerry, so Bush needed to replace those, too.

It appears that about twice as many Bush 2004 voters were DNVs as former Gore voters, so if we want to allocate those 16 million 'net' new voters proportionally, something like 11 million would be DNVs. A different answer to a different question. In that scenario, the rest of the DNV->Bush voters offset some of the Bush->Kerry voters. (Or you could decide that only Gore->Bush voters offset Bush->Kerry voters, so there are fewer 'net' Gore->Bush voters.)

I think it's less confusing to avoid the 16 million figure entirely, but it can work either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Here is the actual NEP Voted96 and Voted2k new voter data...
Edited on Sat Apr-28-07 11:58 AM by glengarry
From the Introduction:
"They failed to explain how Bush found 16mm new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62mm in 2004. He had 50.5mm votes in 2000. But only about 46mm returned to vote in 2004. The decrease was due to two factors: 1) approximately 1.7mm Bush voters died (0.87% annual mortality rate) and 2) an estimated 2.5mm did not vote (95% turnout). According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% or 10.8 of 26.3mm new voters. He needed 60% or 15.8mm to reach 62. The 19% discrepancy was 11 times the 1.72% margin of error. The probability of the discrepancy is ZERO. It’s important to note that a solid majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush an approval rating much lower than his total 48.5% average on Election Day 2004, a 1% monthly decline from Sept. 2001."

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NewVoterMystery

New Voters: 2000-2004
Since Bush did much worse in 2004 (41%) among new voters compared to 2000 (52%), how did he win in 2004 and lose in 2000?

Final 2000 NEP:
DNV96: Election 2000 voters who did not vote in 1996.
DNV96 comprised 13% of the total 2000 recorded vote.
DNV96 (13%) = first-time voters (9%) + others (4%).

Bush won total DNV96 by 52-44%.
Gore won first-time voters by 52-43%.
Bush won others by 71-26%.


12:22am 2004 NEP:
DNV2k: Election 2004 voters who did not vote in 2000.
DNV2k comprised 17% of the total 2004 recorded vote.
DNV2k (17%) = first-time voters (11%) + others (6%).

Kerry won total DNV2k by 57-41%.
Kerry won first-time voters by 55-43%.
Kerry won others by 61-37%.

Kerry did much better with DNV2k voters in 2004 than Bush with DNV96 voters in 2000.
Bush did much better with DNV96 voters in 2000 than he did with DNV2k voters in 2004.

In 2000, Bush won 71% of DNV96 who were not first-time voters, but only 43% of first-time voters, a 28% discrepancy.

In 2004, Kerry won 61% of DNV2k who were not first-time voters and 55% of first-time voters, a 6% discrepancy.

So how did Kerry lose in 2004?

Final 2000 National Exit Poll
Voted in 1996

Vote Mix Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Total
Clint 46% 82% 15% 1% 2% 100%
Dole 31% 7% 91% 0% 1% 99%
Perot 6% 27% 64% 1% 7% 99%
Other 2% 26% 52% 1% 15% 94%
DNV96 13% 44% 52% 0% 3% 99%
DNV96:
1stTime 9% 52% 43% 1% 4% 100%
Other 4% 26% 71% 0% 3% 100%

Total 98% 47.8% 46.8% 0.5% 2.3% 97.4%

First-time Voter
........Mix Gore Bush Buch Nader Total
Yes 9% 52% 43% 1% 4% 100%
No 91% 48% 48% 0% 2% 98%
Total 100% 48.4% 47.6% 0.1% 2.2% 98%


2004 National Exit Poll (12:22am)
Voted in 2000

........Mix Kerry Bush Other
Gore 39% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 41% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3% 71% 21% 8%
DNV2k 17% 57% 41% 2%
DNV2k:
1stTime 11% 55% 43% 2%
Other 6% 61% 37% 2%

Total 100% 51.4% 47.6% 0.97%


VOTED IN 2000
(adjusted for feasible weights)

Voted2k Votes Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNVk2 27.02 21.5% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore 48.08 38.2% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0%
Bush 47.56 37.8% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 3.08 2.5% 71.0% 21.0% 8.0%

Share Total 100.0% 52.6% 46.4% 1.0%
Votes 125.74 125.74 66.09 58.38 1.27


Kerry wins ALL plausible scenarios of DNV2k and Gore voter share:

............DNV2k for Kerry
Gore 49.0% 51.0% 53.0% 54.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
for Kerry Kerry National Vote share

86% 48.9% 49.4% 49.8% 50.0% 50.7% 51.1% 51.5%
87% 49.3% 49.7% 50.2% 50.4% 51.0% 51.5% 51.9%
88% 49.7% 50.1% 50.6% 50.8% 51.4% 51.8% 52.3%
89% 50.1% 50.5% 50.9% 51.2% 51.8% 52.2% 52.7%
90% 50.5% 50.9% 51.3% 51.5% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0%
91% 50.8% 51.3% 51.7% 51.9% 52.6% 53.0% 53.4%
92% 51.2% 51.7% 52.1% 52.3% 52.9% 53.4% 53.8%





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. uh, no
"They failed to explain how Bush found 16mm new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62mm in 2004."

That assumes that Bush got zero Gore votes. Even TIA doesn't believe that -- except, apparently, when it suits his rhetorical purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Uh, no. Look at the 12:22am NEP...
Edited on Sat Apr-28-07 01:21 PM by glengarry
According to the 12:22am NEP, Bush got 8% of Gore2k votes, and Kerry got 10% of Bush2k votes.

And Kerry wins ALL plausible Bush/Gore defection scenarios.

........... Bush2k voters for Kerry
.........7.00% 7.50% 8.00% 8.50% 9.00% 9.50% 10.0%
Gore2k
for
Kerry
.......................Kerry vote share
85% 49.1% 49.3% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3%
86% 49.5% 49.7% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7%
87% 49.9% 50.1% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.8% 51.0%
88% 50.3% 50.5% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4%
89% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8%
90% 51.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2%
91% 51.4% 51.6% 51.8% 52.0% 52.2% 52.4% 52.56%



Where did Bush find 16 million new voters from 2000?
According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Bush won 41% of the DNV2k category (first-time and former voters who did not vote in 2000). But Bush needed 60% (15.78mm) of DNV2k to obtain his 62.04mm recorded vote. It was quite a feat considering that his job rating was in a steady decline from 90% on Sept.11, 2001 to 48.5% on Election Day 2004. Compare the 60% required by Bush to his 41% NEP share. The 19% discrepancy is 11 times the 1.72% MoE. There’s no need to compute the probability: It’s ZERO.

Given the Recorded Vote totals:
1) 122.295mm in 2004
2) 104.738mm in 2000
3) Gore 2000: 51.004 million
4) Bush 2000: 50.459 million
5) Bush 2004: 62.041 million

Assumptions:
1) X = 3.5% of 2000 voters died prior to 2004
2) Y = 95% of 2000 voters living voted in 2004
3) NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares

Determine:
Bush required share of new (DNV2k) voters to get his recorded 62.04mm total

Calculation:
Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004:
46.26mm = 50.459 *(1-X) * Y = 50.459 * .965 * .95
Weight = 46.26 / 122.295 = 37.83%

Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004:
46.76mm = 51.004 * (1-X) * Y = 51.004 * .965 * .95
Weight = 46.76 / 122.295 = 38.23%

Total number of DNV2k voters in 2004:
T = 26.28mm = 122.295 - 104.738*(1-X)*Y = 122.295 – 96.02

DNV2k votes required for Bush to get his recorded 62.04mm total:
Z = 15.78 mm = Bush 2004 vote – Bush 2000 voter turnout = 62.04 - 46.26

Required Bush share of DNV2k:
P = 60% = Z / T = 15.78/26.28


Sensitivity Analysis

Bush DNV2k Votes Required for Various 2000 Voter Turnout and Mortality Rates

2000 Voter Turnout in 2004 (Y)
Mort 100% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% 92% 91%
Rate
(X)
..................Required Bush DNV2k votes (Z) in millions
3.50% 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.78 16.3 16.8 17.2 17.7
3.00% 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5
2.50% 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.8 16.3 16.8 17.3
2.00% 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.0

1.50% 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.8 16.3 16.8
1.00% 12.1 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.6
0.50% 11.8 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.4 15.9 16.4
0.00% 11.6 12.1 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.1 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.1


........................Required Bush DNV2k Vote Share (P)
3.50% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.1% 60.5% 60.0% 59.6% 59.2% 58.8% 58.5%
3.00% 63.3% 62.6% 61.9% 61.3% 60.8% 60.3% 59.8% 59.4% 59.0% 58.6%
2.50% 63.7% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.1% 60.5% 60.1% 59.6% 59.2% 58.8%
2.00% 64.1% 63.3% 62.6% 61.9% 61.3% 60.8% 60.3% 59.8% 59.4% 59.0%

1.50% 64.5% 63.7% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.0% 60.5% 60.0% 59.6% 59.2%
1.00% 65.0% 64.1% 63.3% 62.6% 61.9% 61.3% 60.8% 60.3% 59.8% 59.4%
0.50% 65.5% 64.5% 63.7% 62.9% 62.2% 61.6% 61.0% 60.5% 60.0% 59.6%
0.00% 66.0% 65.0% 64.1% 63.3% 62.5% 61.9% 61.3% 60.7% 60.2% 59.8%



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. it's up to TIA to make his arguments make sense, not me
The part you quoted simply assumes that no one defected at all, which is untrue.

But useful for his rhetorical purposes, since once he has to start interpreting the results, he smacks into all the evidence that people don't accurately report their past votes, and his argument blows up. We went through it here last time he got tombstoned. For instance, you might read this post slowly and in context.

Kerry doesn't win all "plausible" defection scenarios, just the ones TIA happens to like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You are ignoring the assumptions.
Edited on Sat Apr-28-07 02:31 PM by glengarry
You say:
"The part you quoted simply assumes that no one defected at all, which is untrue."

That is patently false. The calculation assumptions are stated very clearly. Apparently you didn't see them.

Assumptions:
1) X = 3.5% of 2000 voters died prior to 2004
2) Y = 95% of 2000 voters living voted in 2004
Read slowly:
3) NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares
(Bush defections 10%; Gore defections 8%)

Ok, assuming the 12:22am NEP defection rates:
Of the 46.26mm Bush2k voters who voted in 2004, 4.62mm (10%) defected to Kerry. Of the 46.76mm Gore2k voters who voted in 2004, 3.74mm (8%) defected to Bush.

Therefore, there was a 0.88mm net vote defection from Bush to Kerry.
So Bush actually needed 15.78+0.88= 16.66mm new voters, not 15.78mm.

Of course you assume that 14.6% Gore voters defected, but that only 7.2% Bush voters defected. That is a 6.6% discrepancy from the NEP 8% Gore defection. Here are probabilities of the deviations from the 12:22am NEP of your assumed vote shares as per the DU "Game" thread:

Voted NEP Share Deviation MoE Probability
DNV2k 57% 52.90% 4.10% 1.72% 1 in 629,000
Gore 91% 84.83% 6.17% 0.99% Effectively ZERO
Bush 10% 7.20% 2.80% 1.04% 1 in 15 million
.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. please reread post #14
Edited on Sat Apr-28-07 02:10 PM by OnTheOtherHand
It's remarkable that I have to make that request, since you posted it yourself.

Now you quote a claim that Bush actually needed not 15.8 million but 16.66 million new voters. That isn't true, either, but it probably would be close if we could accept this:
3) NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares
(Bush defections 10%; Gore defections 8%)

At the risk of beating the dead horse, that assumes not only that the particular exit poll estimate you are looking at is The Right one, but that people report their past votes accurately. TIA can't refute the evidence that people sometimes don't report their past votes accurately, nor can he show that it doesn't matter whether they report their past votes accurately. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Not quite the end of the story...
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#DUGame

"... it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush. What is relevant is who they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry. The 2000 and 2004 recorded vote and annual mortality rate are historical demographic facts. They are necessary and sufficient to determine the maximum number of Bush and Gore voters who could have voted in 2004. Bush and Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004 is unknown. Turnout must be estimated in order to determine plausible weights (95% in the True Vote Model)".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. we've been here before
Edited on Sat Apr-28-07 02:36 PM by OnTheOtherHand
"... it's irrelevant whether Gore 2000 voters forgot or lied to the exit pollsters when they said they voted for Bush. What is relevant is who they voted for in 2004 - and 91% said it was Kerry.

I swear, this is not very hard to understand:

If we don't know whom the 2004 exit poll respondents actually voted for in 2000 -- or even whether they voted in 2000 at all -- then we don't know what percentage of Gore 2000 voters voted for Kerry.

ETA: Once this problem is acknowledged, we can go about trying to estimate the figure. But abandoning denial is the essential first step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. But we can look at various scenarios of 2000 voter turnout in 2004
Kerry wins all plausible (and implausible) scenarios

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#TrueVoteModel

Sensitivity Analysis

12:22am National Exit Poll (feasible adjusted weights):
How does Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout effect the national vote?

Scenario assumptions:
100% Bush 2000 voter turnout
95% Gore voter turnout
Kerry wins by 51.6 - 47.4%, a 5.32 million vote margin.


Kerry Vote Share
Sensitivity to Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout

Bush Gore Turnout
Turnout 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

95% 52.6% 52.7% 52.8% 53.0% 53.1% 53.2%
96% 52.4% 52.5% 52.7% 52.8% 52.9% 53.1%
97% 52.2% 52.3% 52.5% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9%
98% 52.0% 52.1% 52.3% 52.4% 52.6% 52.7%
99% 51.8% 52.0% 52.1% 52.2% 52.4% 52.5%
100% 51.6% 51.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.2% 52.3%

VOTE MARGIN

95% 7.72 8.06 8.40 8.74 9.08 9.42
96% 7.24 7.58 7.92 8.26 8.60 8.93
97% 6.76 7.10 7.44 7.78 8.12 8.45
98% 6.28 6.62 6.96 7.30 7.63 7.97
99% 5.80 6.14 6.48 6.81 7.15 7.49
100% 5.32 5.66 5.99 6.33 6.67 7.01
________________________________________________________
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. But you do not
model any scenario in which a proportion of your apparent "Bush2K" voters may be actual Gore voters, despite the fact that, as Mark Lindeman has shown, this is likely to be the case (i.e. it is highly "plausible"), and despite the fact that this has been pointed out to you a great many times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Wrong. It was modeled by the defection sensitivity analysis..
According to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry got 91% of Gore2k voters and 10% of Bush2k voters. By lowering the Kerry share of each group, we are implicitly assuming a larger Gore defection rate.

Pessimistic Scenario assumptions:
2000 Voter Turnout: 95% Gore; 95% Bush
Kerry won 89% of Gore voters (as opposed to the NEP 91%)
Kerry won 6% of Bush voters (as opposed to the NEP 10%)
This implies a 6% defection increase of Gore voters to Bush.

Kerry still wins by 50.3% - 48.7%, a 1.99 million vote margin.


Kerry Vote Share
Sensitivity to Kerry share of returning Gore and Bush voters


Gore Voter Share
.......... 89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94%
Bush
Voter
Share Kerry Vote Share
10% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7%
9% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0% 53.3%
8% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6% 53.0%
7% 50.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2% 52.6%

6% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8% 52.2%
5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4% 51.8%
4% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1% 51.4%
3% 49.2% 49.5% 49.9% 50.3% 50.7% 51.1%

...... Vote Margin (millions)

10% 5.80 6.76 7.72 8.68 9.64 10.60
9% 4.85 5.81 6.77 7.73 8.69 9.65
8% 3.89 4.86 5.82 6.78 7.74 8.70
7% 2.94 3.90 4.87 5.83 6.79 7.75

6% 1.99 2.95 3.91 4.88 5.84 6.80
5% 1.04 2.00 2.96 3.93 4.89 5.85
4% 0.09 1.05 2.01 2.97 3.94 4.90
3% -0.86 0.10 1.06 2.02 2.98 3.95

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. So what proportion of
nominally "Bush 2k" voters have you assumed might actually be Gore2K voters, or DNV2s? And what did that do to your output?

You have, I take it, read Mark Lindeman's paper in which he models various assumptions regarding these?

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/too-many.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. delete
Edited on Sun Apr-29-07 03:52 AM by kster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. Febble, Tell your people, the stupid shit is over

We will be hand counting the votes, if they don't like it, TELL THEM TO GO F*CK THEMSELVES ,WE ARE ON TO THEM, AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THEIR LITTLE SECRET VOTE COUNTING MACHINES OUT! ! !

TRY US!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. My people?
And even if I knew who they were, how could I assure them of this?

Actually, what is your problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. you missed the point, I hope
Once we abandon your unfounded confidence about whom Gore 2000 and Bush 2000 voters voted for, we can't extrapolate vote shares from turnout.

But it's worse than that. We have evidence from all those exit polls that people tend to overstate having voted for the incumbent four years earlier -- and the 2000-04 NES panel indicates (not surprisingly) that the people who misremember having voted for Bush in 2000 tend to have voted for him in 2004. It is fairly straightforward to extrapolate that the Gore->Bush defection rate is higher than it appears, and that the Bush->Kerry defection rate is lower. I walk through these points in the FAQ. (And, again, my example here shows how misreport of past vote can influence the percentages.)

We might as well cut to TIA's so-called rebuttal of this point:

"Wow! That can only be described as a convoluted, faith-based set of hyper-hypotheticals."

OK, so far we have adjectival handwaving. No substantive criticism whatsoever. Actually, no evidence that he ever read what I wrote. I have no way of knowing. I only know that he has offered no rebuttal.

"And this is where we part company."

Well, I hope so. I do try to present actual arguments.

"For one to believe that over 7 million Democratic Gore voters would defect..."

Actually, TIA made that up. I never asserted that over 7 million Democratic Gore voters voted for Bush. I never even asserted that over 7 million Gore voters, period, voted for Bush, although I suppose it's possible.

According to the 2000 exit poll, about 30% of Gore's votes came from self-identified Republicans and Independents. It's no use pretending that they were all Democrats.

"...and vote for the most incompetent, dishonest pRresident (sic) in history (with a 48.5% approval rating)..."

Still with the approval rating argument?! Hey, TIA, please report the results of your own regression analysis: what approval rating is associated with a 50% two-party vote share?

"...who STOLE the 2000 election from them..."

At this point an empiricist might start looking for evidence that Gore voters were almost universally livid with Bush after the 2000 election (or whatever TIA intends to insinuate -- I can only guess at the argument, really). It may not have been apparent from the 57% approval / 25% disapproval Bush had in the Gallup Poll in early February 2001, but maybe they were just being polite at that point. (Obviously approval is not the same thing as belief that the outcome was fair, but then, that isn't the point. Presumably TIA is suggesting that Gore voters were unlikely to vote for Bush in 2004 because they were embittered by 2000; evidently some were more bitter than others.)

It's possible to inquire honestly into what Gore voters might have done in 2004, but not if we pretend that they were all Democratic loyalists.

"...is really a stretch -- a perfect example of faith-based naysayer fundamentalism."

In other words, he just doesn't believe me. So, who is being "faith-based" here? Does he have a criticism of my arguments, or doesn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Four facts and a question
Edited on Sun Apr-29-07 01:13 AM by glengarry
1. It is impossible that 43% of 2004 voters were Bush 2000 voters.
But it was necessary to force the Final NEP to match the recorded vote.

2. The NES poll is based on a sample-size of 600 who were asked who they voted for YEARS ago in the PRIOR election.

3. The 2004 NEP interviewed 13047 respondents who were asked who they voted for JUST FIVE MINUTES EARLIER. And 91% said they voted for Kerry.

4. Kerry won the Gender demographic by 50.78-48.22%.

Do you also contend that approximately 490 (3.75%) of the 13047 exit poll respondents had a quick sex change in the FIVE minutes between casting their vote and the exit poll interview and chose to lie about their prior Gender? And they did this in order to jump on a long-term Bush bandwagon?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Do you still really not get this?
The 2004 NEP interviewed 13047 respondents who were asked who they voted for JUST FIVE MINUTES EARLIER. Of these, a quarter were also asked who they voted for in the PRIOR election, and on the basis of their answers to this question were classified as "Gore" or "Bush2K" voters in the unadjusted crosstabs you are using for your analysis, despite the evidence from the NES study that showed that people retrospectively overstated having voted for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. as facts go, these are pretty flimsy
1. Fact: I've shown that every presidential exit poll in the ICPSR archive gives the previous winner a larger margin in the electorate than he had in the previous election. That's either a remarkable coincidence, or evidence that exit poll respondents overstate having voted for the incumbent.

So, your two sentences here are more or less accurate, but irrelevant: we should expect reported Bush 2000 voters to be overrepresented in the exit poll. I'm not sure how many times we need to explain this before it sinks in.

2. Actually -- as I assume TIA knows, if he has ever gone to the trouble of examining the data himself -- the NES panel is based on a sample of about 800 people who were interviewed in 2000, and again in 2004.

That's the part that really seems to scare TIA: we can actually see that many people gave different answers in 2004 than in 2000. With the exit polls, we can only infer the misreporting (see point 1 above), but with the NES, we can observe it. (Of course we still don't know for sure whom these people actually voted for in 2000.) But we can only see what we are willing to look at.

3. 91% of 13047 respondents said they voted for Kerry? Of course not. That doesn't even look like a fact.

Why this mistake? I can only speculate. Maybe you started to type that "91% of Gore voters said they voted for Kerry," but it occurred to you that we don't know who the Gore voters were, because that would depend on the respondents' reports of whom they voted for four years ago. So you just left it out. Try not to confuse yourself.

Really, think about it. If it's fair to say that the NES respondents were asked who they voted for years ago in the prior election (never mind that they were interviewed twice, four years apart), how could it not be equally true that the exit poll respondents were asked who they voted for years ago in the prior election? Are you really convinced that people reported their 2000 votes more accurately in the 2004 exit poll than in the 2000 NES interviews? If so, well, good luck with that.

4. Kerry "won the Gender demographic"? What does this mean?

I suppose this claim means that you are looking at some preliminary exit poll tabulation, and the gender table indicates that Kerry was ahead. Well, presumably every table (subject to rounding error) would indicate the same thing. So what? If Kerry's support is overstated, how is it not going to be overstated in every table?

"Do you also contend...?"

No. I simply contend that the preliminary exit poll tabulation overstates Kerry's support. (In fact, the Bush/Gore split tends to corroborate that conclusion: Bush 41 / Gore 38, as in the version archived at exitpollz.org, would be an unusually small discrepancy from the 2000 official vote share. You know this from reading my paper, I imagine.) It can hardly surprise you that I think this, so I have to wonder: why did you ask this question, which patently has nothing to do with misreporting of past votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Um... you seem not to have read your own post:
"They failed to explain how Bush found 16mm new voters (DNV2k) to reach 62mm in 2004. He had 50.5mm votes in 2000. But only about 46mm returned to vote in 2004"

in which TIA seems to suggest that "they" need to explain how Bush got 16mm new voters from DNV2k to bring the total from 46m Bush voters in in 2000 to 62m in 2004. "They" would only need to explain that if there were no defectors. If there were defectors (and there were certainly defectors) then not all the 16mm shortfall needs to be accounted for by DNV2k voters. Some could have been Gore voters. As TIA states in his calculation.

The two posts are simply not consistent. Perhaps you didn't notice that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. What?
You don't trust the Publican owned voting machines, and aren't hell bent on mathematically proving that the machines counted all the votes as cast?

Why, bleever, why can't you just accept the ideology that reinforces the idea that America was ready to die for four more years of the unelected to start with?

Why keep bringing up these notions that the election was stolen? Why not instead try to prove that bushco was elected fair and square?

Ahhhhh... I think I know why. Kerry On. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. My attitude is that, given what we've learned,
if there was a loophole, they'd exploit it.

If there was a weakness, they'd exploit it.

If there was a marginally-legal tactic to sway the results, they'd exploit it.

If there was a technically illegal but potentially unenforceable leverage tactic, they'd exploit it.

If there was something illegal but plausibly deniable, through cut-outs or other "out of the loop" excuses, they would do it.

If there was a clearly illegal, but potentially unenforceable tactic, they'd use it.

If there was a blatantly illegal, historically reviled practice, and they could by virtue of their infiltration get away with it, and even validate it via their media assets, they'd do it. In seconds flat.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-12-07 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You mean
If they thought they could get away with it they'd do it?

Well, they've been caught, but they did get away with it, didn't they?

Of course, some people are likely to show up and say: No, they weren't caught because there is nothing to show that they did any thing wrong, 'cause, hey, they got MATH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
33. Keep up the good work kstr. The evidence is overwhelming that Bush lost in 04.
And people need to keep seeing the evidence, all of it.

There's also a little thing called common sense.

But in the end it comes down to who you trust. TIA may have made some claims that aren't based on airtight calculations, but on the whole his computations match those of Steve Freeman, Baimon, et al. and once the results of elections begin to be fairly counted and matched against the alleged results (as in the Clint Curtis alleged loss in FL, where he claims to have gotten affidavits from enough voters to prove the machine results fallacious. He also took and passed a lie detector test and testified before Congress about his allegation that Feeney got him to create a program to steal his election), it will be seen that the machines are being used to steal elections, and TIA deserves huge credit for all he has done to make that fact obvious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC