Reply #46: Read the NM Exit Poll Report

[Bill Bored]

<http://votewatch.us/Members/StevenHertzberg/report.2004-12-13.1986469362/report_contents_file/>

"Votewatch was not interested, of course, in predicting the presidential outcome. Its
concerns were solely focused on learning whether the voting process went
smoothly, and, if not, why not. The value of the <presidential> preference question was to give an
external measure of validity of the exit poll itself, since the presidential preferences
people indicated in the survey could be, and were, compared with the actual
precinct totals learned after the election."

So they were NOT interested in detecting fraud in NM.

Whether today's report changes anything or not, I don't know. Haven't read it yet. But in general ESI seem more concerned with the process itself than its accuracy at this point, or at least as of Nov. 2004.

I agree that the explanation for the non-randomness of the 3% Ohio hand count sample was completely inadequate on the part of Steven^3. Perhaps some of the lawyers among us can explain this since there is a lot of proposed legislation that uses the term "random" in its auditing language.