Reply #17: you can't divorce exit polling from statistical science

[ngant17]

because it is based on independent, random sampling of a population set.

There are dozens of PhD statisticians in the US who have supported the scientific work behind exit polling.

As one example, Professor Steven Freeman, Ph.D., a statistician at the University of Pennsylvania, has conclusively shown that there is only 1 chance in 250 MILLION that the 3 main exit polls (OH, FL, PA) conducted during the 2004 general elections could all be wrong. This is strong evidence that fraud was the cause and the election was stolen in the previous presidential election.

Elsewhere statisticians have noted that precincts with hand-counted paper ballots showed no statistical discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results, but for other voting technologies, i.e. black box voting, the overall discrepancy was far larger than the polls' margin of error.

OK, assuming you are right, then if exit polling is not a variation of SPC, we do need to start implementing SPC into the election and voting process while we still have some vestiges of a democracy left. And you want to call that something else besides "exit polling", it doesn't matter, it's "6 one way, half-a-dozen another", but there has to be a redundant process, based on science and logic, which can insure integrity in the elections. I won't argue with you about the semantics of the word.