Reply #14: I'm not one to mess with success

[Jack Rabbit]

I would want to see figures before they weighted them to match the "actual" outcome. Looking at figures that are weighted to match the outcome defeats the purpose of looking at the figures to determine if the outcome was fudged. That, after all, is what we want to know.

Nevertheless, that the pollsters changed a good method for an inferior one doesn't prove voter fraud. It isn't even circumstantial evidence of it.

What would be circumstantial evidence of it would be showing a correlation between polling data discrepancies and some other independent variable, such as the use of e-Voting.

The hypothesis I am advancing is that if exit polls were wrong, they were wrong across the board and that if there was no voter fraud they would be just as wrong in precincts where e-voting was used as in precincts where more traditional methods were used. If there was fraud, evidence of it should be seen by examining those precincts where the exit poll discrepancy with the tabulated vote was widest and then asking what those precincts had in common with each other but not precincts where exit polls and the tabulated vote more closely matched.

That is something that can only be determined by examining the polling data vis a vis the tabulated vote at a finer level than I've seen from you or anybody else up to now.