Reply #55: My response

[autorank]

My dear Mr. Rabbit: After working a long day dealing with all sorts of complicated issues and dynamics, I came home to what?...an intelligent response to my message. Now I have to think again.

You state: This is because one really can't tell if there was fraud or if the polling was inaccurate. Not correct. Exit polling and the voting-tabulation process are totally separate. Exit polling, properly conducted, will show within a certain percentage point, what the vote was. This process is based on generally accepted statistical procedures, methods, and laws. It doesn't matter if the ballot boxes were stuffed or the machines were hacked. You state: If one looks at polling outside the area where fraud occurred, then one could uncover fraud. If the intended purpose of exit polls is to catch fraud then the location where fraud takes place is based on a binary process. If the vote tallies match up to the exit polls then the vote tallies are likely (at some very high percent) to be accurate. If the tallies vary from the exit polls, then fraud is likely. Polling "outside the area where fraud occurs" is, therefore, based on the exit polls, not the other way around.

You state: They aren't so much fraudulent as they can just be wrong for any number of reasons. An extreme example is the Literary Digest poll... I'm familiar with that poll. There were quite a few intelligent people around then and I'm sure several of them pointed out the absurdity of this methodology. In the case of today's exit polls, or those since 1996 that Truth uses, there is intense scrutiny of methodology. The 1996 and 2000 Exit Polls were very close. The 2004 Exits were not that different in application. Therefore, the validity of the polls carries over from '96 and '00 to today and today's (2004) polls are accurate.


You state: Fraud can be uncovered as long as it is not perpetrated equally everywhere. Not so. They can steal the entire election in the same way with the same methodology everywhere, and we can still, through the Exit Polls, determine that the vote was tampered with. The Exit Polls are transparent, largely, while voting and tabulation is not. You state: In this case, the hypothesis is that the agent of fraud was new voting technology; No again. The agents were those who conspired to commit the fraud. It could have been a variety of technologies including hacking data lines, mainframes or other tabulation machines; or, think about it, simply changing a total and relying on fast foot work in cases where an unbiased audit is called.

I place my money on Exit Polls over actual vote tallies and believe that our discovery of fraud can start or be supported by Exit Polls.

:toast: