Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2008 Election Analysis: A Compendium of Links ( TIA )

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 11:41 PM
Original message
2008 Election Analysis: A Compendium of Links ( TIA )
Edited on Sun Jan-04-09 12:34 AM by tiptoe


2008 Election Analysis: A Compendium of Links

TruthIsAll     source: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionAnal...

January 3,  2009


Popular and Electoral Vote Projections

The Election Calculator

The preliminary May 23, 2008 model projection indicated that Obama would win by 12 million votes: 71-59m (54.1-44.7%). The model estimated the number of returning 2004 voters and vote shares to project the popular vote. The number of returning 2004 voters was calculated by adjusting the 2004 recorded vote for a 4.8% voter mortality rate, 3.45 million uncounted votes and estimated 95% turnout of 2004 voters in 2008. The Obama and McCain projected vote shares of returning and new voters were close to the preliminary, unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll estimates for Kerry and Bush, respectively.

The Election Model

This Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation projected 365.3 expected electoral votes for Obama and a 53.1-44.9% share. He won by 365173 EV with a 69.559.9m popular vote margin (52.8745.62%). The base case assumption was that Obama would win 60% of late undecided voters. A 75% undecided voter allocation produced a 53.8% share and 379.5 expected EV. Pollsters typically allocate 7090% of the late undecided vote to the challenger depending on the incumbents performance. McCain was the de facto incumbent; Bush approval was 22%.

The Election Model projected 365.3 expected electoral votes but not the True Vote

The model exactly matched the electoral vote and was within 0.2% of the popular vote share. But a post-election sensitivity analysis using Final 2008 NEP vote shares with a plausible returning voter mix indicated that Obamas True vote share was 24% higher than the recorded share.


Post-Election Analysis

A Conversation about the 2008 election

A one on one discussion highlights the statistical anomalies. The Final 2008 National Exit Poll provides the tell. Its standard procedure for the Final NEP to adjust demographic weights and vote shares and force a match to the recorded vote. Unfortunately, an impossible mix of returning voters was necessary in order to force the match just as it was in 2004.

Landslide Denied

The tremendous GOTV and new voter registration effort was not reflected in the recorded vote. The 9 million increase from 2004 compared to 17 million in 2004. An analysis of uncounted votes and exit poll discrepancies in the 1988–2004 presidential elections revealed some very interesting information. In the 4 elections from 1988 to 2000, the average unadjusted state exit poll aggregate was within 1% of the recorded vote — after the uncounted votes were included. But 2004 was different in kind and scope: including the uncounted votes did not make up the difference. HAVA (Help America Vote Act) was passed during the first Bush term.

2008 National Exit Poll Does Not Compute

The National Exit Poll Voted in 2004 returning voter mix (46 Bush / 37 Kerry / 4 Other) implies that Bush voters comprised 46% (60.3m) of the recorded 131.07m vote. Bush had 62.0 million recorded votes in 2004 and approximately 3.0m died, so there were only 59.0m potential Bush voters in 2008. Assuming a 95% turnout, 56m voted. Where did the 4.3m Bush voters come from? The Final NEP also implies that 5.2m (4%) were returning third-party voters, but there were 1.2m third-party votes in 2004. Where did the extra 4m come from? One can only conclude that since an impossible Final 2008 NEP was forced to match the recorded vote, the recorded vote was also impossible.

Statistical Anomalies

The 2008 Election Calculator model determines the True vote based on the number of returning 2004 voters and Final 2008 National Exit Poll vote shares. It indicates that Obamas True Vote was more than double his recorded 9.5m vote margin. Anomalies abound in the national and state pre-election polls, exit polls and late vote shares. The number of uncounted votes is still unknown. Assuming the 2004 True Vote (Kerry won by 67–57m), then only 51m Bush voters returned to vote in 2008, a 9.3m discrepancy from the Final NEP.

Matching to the 2008 Recorded Vote

The 2008 National Exit Poll Bush/Kerry (46/37) returning voter mix, like the 2004 Bush/Gore (43/37) mix, was mathematically impossible. In order to match the recorded vote, both exit polls required about 6 million more returning Bush voters than were still living. The 2008 return voter mix anomaly is further confirmation that Kerry won. An impossible high returning Bush voter turnout and low Kerry turnout were required to match the 2008 recorded vote. Like Gore and Kerry, Obamas True vote far exceeded his recorded vote.

In order to match the 2008 recorded vote, the NEP implied that Bush won by 53–43%. He won the official vote by 50.7–48.3% (62–59m). Because the returning voter mix was impossible, two returning voter scenarios were assumed. The 2008 Election Calculator determined that the vote shares required to match the 2008 recorded vote using both the 2004 recorded vote scenario and the unadjusted 2004 aggregate exit poll scenario (Kerry won by 52–47%) were both implausible. The 2004 returning voter turnout required to match the vote was impossible.


Using Excel Solver to Calculate the Required Vote Mix

The National Exit Poll asked respondents whom they voted for in 2004 as well as in 2008, but the unadjusted NEP vote shares did not match the official count. It never does. The Final NEP is always forced to match the official vote count. How do the pollsters adjust the mix and/or shares to achieve the match? The Excel Solver program used a goal-seeking search algorithm to adjust the returning voter mix and force a match the official count. But the mix is impossible: required Bush voter turnout exceeds the number who actually voted in 2004.

Obama Landslide in 3D

Obamas total vote share was a function of his share of returning Kerry, Bush and new voters. The Final NEP vote shares were 89%, 17% and 71%, respectively. Due to the margin of error, it is instructive to view the effects of incremental changes on the total vote. The Election Calculator sensitivity analysis shows that Obama did much better than the recorded margin; he may have won by more than 20 million votes .Two basic scenarios were considered in order to derive a plausible returning voter mix: a) the recorded 2004 vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%) and b) the unadjusted 2004 exit poll (Kerry 52-47%). The mix was calculated using voter mortality, uncounted votes and turnout rates. Obama won the recorded vote (conservative) scenario by 17.6 million: 75.4-57.8m (55.7-42.7%). He won the exit poll (most-likely) scenario by 22.6m: 77.9-55.3m (57.5-40.8%).

Election Calculator Sensitivity Analysis

All models consist of actual recorded data, assumptions (parameters), and calculations. Given that the Election Calculator (EC) mathematical computations are correct, the base case assumptions are the potential source of error in calculating the True Vote. The assumptions are the actual recorded data and best estimates from the following sources: the 2004 and 2008 official recorded vote, voter mortality tables, historical returning voter turnout percentages, Census total votes cast, 2008 National Exit Poll vote shares and the unadjusted (WPE) Edison-Mitofsky 2004 state exit poll aggregate shares. Due to the implied margin of error in the estimates, the model examines the effects of changes in the assumptions through a comprehensive set of sensitivity analysis tables. Each table consists of 25 combinations (scenarios) for two input variables to gauge the impact of each combination on Obamas vote share and margin. It is likely that a very close approximation to the True Vote is located in the table; the most likely, base case estimate is in the central cell. The range of plausible vote shares can be narrowed from 25 to 9 by focusing on the combinations of assumptions that lie within the margin of error.


Forecasting Methodology

Projecting the Electoral Vote and Win Probability

Most election forecasters, media pundits and academics fail to apply basic probability, statistics and simulation methodology in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probability. A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Regardless of the particular method used to forecast the winner of each state, the corresponding state win probabilities are necessary in order to calculate the expected EV and win probability.

Election Model: Monte Carlo Simulation

The expected state EV is the win probability times the electoral vote. If the probability is 50% and the state has 20 EV, then each candidate gets 10 electoral votes. The Total Expected EV is the sum of the products for all the states. The math is exceedingly simple. The tough part is accurately projecting state vote shares. The Election Model uses the latest state poll average and allocates undecided voters to derive the projected 2-party vote. The state win probabilities are used in a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo simulation. The probability that a candidate will win the EV is the number of winning election trials/5000.

Election Forecasting Models

Includes the following:
. Time-series regression models vs. Monte Carlo polling simulation
. Final 2004 state and national projections confirmed by the exit polls
. Analysis of 2004 registered voter (RV) and likely voter (LV) polls
. Basic Polling Mathematics
. Overview of Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

2008 Primaries: Footprints of Election Fraud

Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide

2004-2006 Election Fraud Analytics

2004 Election Model








 
Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kkkarl didn't have enough off teh math.
Still, it pisses me off that they may still have stolen several of the congressional races.

We need foreign auditors for our next round of elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thx TIA and all who keep working on election fraud issues!! K&R!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 08:58 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