Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Statistical proof the election was rigged. IMPORTANT! Please read!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 06:46 PM
Original message
Statistical proof the election was rigged. IMPORTANT! Please read!
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 07:27 PM by EOTE
About a week ago, I created a post requesting data regarding the exit polls in the battleground states. I appreciated the many attempts of my fellow DUers to keep the thread kicked, but it ended up dying in the archives. Well, my dad, who has been the State Epidemiologist for several states, was able to find state by state exit poll information and perform a statistical analysis of that information. The results of the analysis prove what I have strongly suspected since the night of November 2nd, the election was rigged to ensure bush another 4 years. Please read the following and keep this thread kicked. Nominate it for the home page if you will, this is statistical proof that we did not have a legitimate election. Also, forward this information to anyone you please. This information needs to get out there, the mainstream media MUST cover this. I've included the exit poll data from which the article was written, but I tried as hard as I could and I was unable to convert it into HTML table format. If anyone is capable of doing that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

On edit: Oh, and if anyone would like me to send you the article and table data in Word format, just message me with your email address and I'll send you a copy. Thanks.


Comparison of exit polls by state with official vote tallies
Presidential election of 2004 Kerry vs. Bush
by Dale Tavris, using exit poll data collected by Jonathon Simon

Introduction

The 2004 U.S. presidential election has generated a great deal of controversy. Millions of U.S. citizens believe that the election was flawed at best, or stolen at worst. This belief is based on perceived discrepancies between published exit polls and official vote tallies, as well as several instances of documented irregularities in the conduct of the election. This report is an analysis of a comparison by state between exit poll results and official vote tallies.
The analysis of exit poll results for this election is hampered by the fact that it is currently impossible to find an official source for them. CNN posted exit poll results by state on its website throughout the day and evening of Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004. But some time late on that Tuesday evening or early Wednesday morning, CNN changed all of its state exit poll results to reflect the official vote total. So currently there is no official site that contains the actual exit poll results.
For example, shortly past 1:00 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNNs web site indicated for Ohio that women had voted 53-47 for Kerry, and men had voted 51-49 for Kerry, giving Kerry an advantage of approximately four percentage points in the Ohio exit poll. Presumably this was Ohios final exit poll. But then the web site suddenly changed to indicate a 50-50 split in Ohio for women, and a 52-47 advantage for Bush among men. This brought the exit poll into conformance with the official vote tally for Ohio. We know that this happened with respect to Ohio because web shots exist of the change from one minute to the next. Presumably this happened with respect to several or all of the other states as well. This is assumed because CNNs state exit polls currently, and as of some time Wednesday morning, were all in conformance with the official vote tallies. Yet shortly before that time many of the exit polls displayed on CNNs web site varied from the official vote tallies, some of them by substantial amounts. I do not know whether or not web shots of these exit polls exist to confirm that fact for other states, as they do for Ohio.


Methods

The great majority of exit poll data in this report came from Jonathon Simons internet article of November 11th, titled To Those Who Seek Information As A Basis For Action Regarding Bush's Victory . Between 12:19 and 12:38 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd, he collected state by state Edison/Mitofsky exit poll results. This data included the percentage of the vote for Kerry and Bush, the time that the result was listed, and the sample size of the poll for 46 states and the District of Columbia.
He was not able to get to four states (New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina) before the data was apparently altered to conform to the official vote tally. For three of these states (NY, NJ, NC) I used the latest exit poll results that I could find listed on the web by bloggers (4:28 p.m. for NY and NJ, later for NC). I could find no exit poll results for Virginia.
Mr. Simon acknowledges that some of his results from other states might also have been altered before he got to them, but he is not sure. I accepted and used all of his 47 results except for Wisconsin, which apparently was altered before he obtained it. The Wisconsin result that he listed conformed to the official vote tally within 0.3%, and there were other late results listed for Wisconsin that were very different from the official vote tally but consistent with each other. It is also of note that the Ohio results are the only ones that Mr. Simon lists as having been obtained prior to 12:19 a.m. Wednesday morning. He lists these as having been obtained at 7:32 p.m. Tuesday evening. Yet, these results are completely consistent with the CNN web shots of the Ohio exit poll distribution by gender, obtained shortly after 1:00 a.m. Wednesday morning.

Official vote tallies were obtained from CNNs web site dated November 11th: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/presiden... . Percentage of votes for Kerry and Bush were calculated as the percentage of votes that were received by those two candidates (i.e., all 3rd party votes were ignored for this analysis).
The states were divided into two categories battleground and non-battleground states. The battleground states were the ones that were considered to be reasonably winnable by either candidate just prior to the election. There were 11 of these states, and they included Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire. It is important to note that all 11 of these states exhibited differences between the two candidates in the official vote tally of less than 6%, and there was only one other state that did that (Oregon). The percentages of the official vote tallies were figured to the nearest one tenth of a percent for the 11 battleground states, plus eight other close states, whereas for the other states the percentages displayed in CNNs web site, which were rounded to the nearest 1%, were used.
All comparisons of official vote tallies with exit poll results were made using the Chi Square test. When making these comparisons for groups of states, the official vote tally was weighted for the sample size of the exit poll.


Results

Table 1 shows, for each state, the official vote difference between Kerry and Bush (with Kerry states designated as positive values and Bush states designated as negative values), the best available latest exit poll result, the difference between the two (where exit polls were more favorable to Kerry than the official vote tally a plus designation is used, with a minus designation when the opposite applied), the sample size of the exit poll, and the significance value. The significance (p) value is the probability that the difference between the exit polls and the official vote tally could have occurred by chance. It is calculated exactly for the 11 battleground states, whereas for the other states it is merely stated whether or not the p value is less than .05 (which designates a one in twenty probability that a discrepancy of that magnitude could have occurred by chance).
Of the 11 battleground states, six of them (Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire) exhibited discrepancies between exit polls and official vote tallies that were statistically significant at the p less than .05 level (with Ohio and New Hampshire the most statistically significant p= .001 and .00006, respectively), and three more were borderline statistically significant (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico). All 11 of them were more favorable to Kerry than the official vote tally.
Of the 39 other states (including DC, but not Virginia), 12 exhibited statistically significant differences between the exit polls and the official vote tallies. All of these 12 states exhibited exit polls that were more favorable to Kerry than the official vote tally. Of the 27 states that exhibited no statistically significant differences between their exit polls and the official vote tally, 18 of the exit polls were more favorable towards Kerry than the official vote tally, and 9 were more favorable towards Bush than the official vote tally.
Table 2 shows the same information as Table 1 for the group of battleground states combined together, and for all of the other states combined together. The official vote tally in this case is weighted for the sample size of the exit polls. The p value that corresponds to the discrepancies between the exit polls and official vote tallies in the battleground states was 0, taken out to seven digits, for both groups, although the discrepancy is much greater for the battleground states. That means that the probability of that large of a discrepancy occurring by chance was less than one in twenty million.


Discussion and conclusion

This analysis shows large differences between exit poll results and official vote tallies in the battleground states, in all 11 states the exit poll results being more favorable for Kerry than the official vote tallies. The discrepancy is so large that the probability of that happening by chance is less than one in twenty million. The other states also exhibit some discrepancies, in 12 of the 39 states these discrepancies being statistically significant, again all favoring Kerry in the exit polls, as compared to the official vote tallies. But for the non-battleground states, the overall discrepancy is substantially less than for the battleground states, though still highly statistically significant.
Since chance is essentially ruled out in this analysis as an explanation for the discrepancies, there remain two other possible explanations: Either the exit polls are inaccurate, or the official vote tallies do not reflect voter intention because of a flawed election. If the latter is the case and the exit polls did in fact reflect voter intention, that would mean that Kerry would have won Ohio, and perhaps some other states as well, if not for flaws in the way that the election was conducted. With Ohios electoral votes alone he would have won the election.
The hypothesis that the election was flawed is supported by several circumstances, including: 1. the uncovering of several election irregularities within the first few days following the election; 2. the fact that many of the voting machines used to count the votes in this election cannot be audited because of the lack of a paper trail, and the software used to run these machines was not open to public scrutiny; and, 3. the fact that some of the owners of these machines are Republican donors, one of them, head of Diebold Walden ODell mentioned in a fund-raising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The alternate hypothesis is that the exit polls were not accurate during this election. This would mean that they were heavily biased towards John Kerry. Although it is theoretically possible that this was the case, I am not aware of any evidence to support this. Exit polls have been used for decades to call elections, and I am not aware that they have ever been said to be inaccurate before, or to be biased towards a particular candidate.
It could be argued that the statistically significant discrepancies between exit polls and official vote tallies in the non-battleground states suggest that widespread bias in the exit polls was present. But that wouldnt explain why the battleground states were characterized by so much more discrepancy than the non-battleground states. And it could just as well be argued that the same election flaws occurring in the battleground states also occurred in the non-battleground states, although to a lesser degree.
Most U.S. citizens are aware that there was an apparent problem with exit polls during the 2000 election, when Florida was called wrong twice in the same night. But this was not the fault of the exit polls. The first call, which was based largely on exit polls and went to Al Gore, was actually correct with respect to voter intent. Analysis following the election indicated that Gore would probably have received approximately 30,000 more votes if not for voter confusion caused by the infamous butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County. That would have easily erased Gores deficit of a few hundred votes. The second call of that night, which went to Bush, was based on a computer error, which gave Gore minus 20,000 votes from a single precinct in Volusia County. Because of the magnitude and the character of this error, and because a paper trail existed, it was quickly identified and corrected. But a less obvious error might not have been identified and corrected.
In conclusion there appears to be good reason to suspect serious flaws in our recently held election. We will never know the extent of them unless they are thoroughly investigated.

Table 1 Comparison of exit polls by state with official vote tallies
Presidential election of 2004 Kerry vs. Bush

State Vote dif* Exit poll dif** Discrepancy*** Sample size p value****
Battleground states
IA - 0.9 1.3 2.2 2502 .29
FL - 5.1 - 0.1 5.0 2846 .008
OH - 2.7 4.2 6.9 1963 .001
WI 0.4 5 4.6 2223 .03
NM - 1.1 2.6 3.7 1951 .10
PA 2.3 8.7 6.4 1930 .005
MI 3.5 5.0 1.5 2452 .47
MN 3.5 9.0 5.5 2178 .01
NH 1.4 10.8 9.4 1849 .00006
CO - 5.7 - 1.8 3.9 2515 .05
NV - 2.7 1.3 4.0 2116 .07

Non-battleground states
AR - 9.9 - 6.8 3.1 1402 NS
HI 8.7 6.6 - 2.1 499 NS
ME 8.2 9.5 1.3 1968 NS
MO - 7.3 - 5.0 2.3 2158 NS
NJ 6.3 10 3.7 1520 NS
OR 4.0 2.4 - 1.6 1064 NS
WA 7.6 9.9 2.3 2123 NS
WV -13.0 - 9.5 3.5 1722 NS
AL -26 -18 8 730 <.05
AK -27 -19 8 910 <.05
AZ -11 - 6 5 1859 <.05
CA 11 8 - 3 1919 NS
CT 10 17 7 872 <.05
DE 7 17 10 770 <.05
GA -17 -14 3 1536 NS
ID -38 -33 5 559 NS
IL 10 14 4 1392 NS
IN -21 -18 3 926 NS
KS -25 -30 - 5 654 NS
KY -20 -18 2 1034 NS
LA -15 -11 4 1669 NS
MA 25 32 7 889 <.05
MD 13 14 1 1000 NS
MT -20 -20.5 - .5 640 NS
MS -20 -13.5 6.5 798 NS
NE -35 -26.5 8.5 785 NE
NY 18 26 8 1452 <.05
NC -12 - 4 8 2167 <.05
ND -27 -32 - 5 649 NS
OK -32 -30 2 1539 NS
RI 21 28 7 809 <.05
SC -17 - 8 9 1735 <.05
SD -21 -24.5 - 3.5 1495 NS
TN -14 -17 - 3 1774 NS
TX -23 -26 - 3 1671 NS
UT -44 -39 5 798 NS
VT 20 30 10 685 <.05
DC 81 82 1 795 NS

Table 2 Comparison of combined exit polls with official vote tallies for battleground states and
non-battleground states Presidential election of 2004 Kerry vs. Bush

Group Vote dif* Exit poll dif** Discrepancy*** Sample size p value****

Battleground - 0.7 3.8 4.5 24525 .0000000

Other states - 4.0 -3.8 0.2 47651 .55

* Percent Kerry official vote total minus percent Bush vote total
** Percent Kerry vote total minus percent Bush vote in latest exit poll all exit poll data are taken from
Jonathan Simons internet article, except for New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin
(Virginia is not included because I couldnt find any information on Virginia exit polls)
*** Percent difference in exit poll minus percent difference in official vote tally
**** p value is the probability that the discrepancy between the vote difference and the exit poll data
could be as large as it is on the basis of chance. Exact p values are given for the battleground states.
For the other states, it is denoted only whether or not the p value was statistically significant (p<.05)
or not (NS not statistically significant, p>.05).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pointsoflight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is a nice analysis, BUT
As you say in the text, a "rigged election" is one explanation, but there's an alternative explanation having to do with exit polling. Your data prove that the pattern in the data can not be explained by random error, but do not prove that this pattern is due to fraud.

Just giving some constructive feedback here...what you say in the title, that it's proof of a rigged election, is too strong. You have proof of some sort of anomoly. You could even say you have a pattern, when combined with other evidence, that suggests fraud. Doesn't prove fraud, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Correct, however.
A rigged election is by far the most likely explanation. Why do the actual results favor bush by several points compared to the exit polls in all of the swing states? If it's a natural pro-Kerry bias in all the exit polls, why do some states not show the same bias? It just doesn't add up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Michael_UK Donating Member (285 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
51. All this shows
is that the evidence suggests the exit polls were consistently wrong (at some statistical level, 99% say) but it DOES NOT prove fraud.

Occam's razor - it's more likely the exits polls hadn't factored things in (perhaps percentage of youth vote, for example)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #51
69. Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is the right one - Bush cheated
tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. Wrong Actually
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 07:47 PM by Beetwasher
It's not PROOF positive (ok you're right it's not proof), but it's certainly a significant piece of evidential analysis. The Exit Poll analysis can only be dismissed if the methodology is found to be flawed UNIFORMLY. IOW, all states would have the same bias towards Kerry, within an MOE. According to the article it's NOT a uniform flaw. If it's a flaw, it's substantially more prounounced in the battleground states. This is therefore almost certainly NOT a methodological bias.

The likely explanation is a problem with the election.

That being said, it's crazy that no one can get the raw exit poll data. This analysis (and others) obviously would be that much stronger if we had the data accurately sourced. Unfortunately (and oddly) the data is NOT being released. Gee, I wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot Acts Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
40. This is all the proof we need.....
Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold ...a member of President Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers" ......quoted saying "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"

IT CALLES FOR AN INVESTIGATION.... AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. WHY IS OUR VOICE NOT BEING HEARD? Media control and dis-information??


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/yourmoney/09...
In mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year," wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio.

That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race.

READ THE FULL STORY>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/yourmoney/09...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
44. O.K.....EARLY / LATER EXIT POLLS ON NOV. 2 ND!!!!!!!!
Edited on Sat Nov-13-04 05:38 AM by Roxy66
(NOTE TIMES.....)

http://www.mydd.com/section/general/2

Early VNS exit polling
by Jerome Armstrong

Here is some of the early VNS data(correction, National Election Pool, not VNS), fwiw:

AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
Now, mind that these are early numbers. And even if correct, they reflect the ones most wanting to vote, and it's still a long way to go... but wow, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire & Minnesota voters can't wait to boot Bush!

General 2004 :: Tue Nov 2nd, 2004 at 01:57:56 PM EST :: 53 Comments
..................................

Latest Exit Polls from Slate
by Chris Bowers

FL: 50/49 - KERRY
OH: 52/47 - KERRY
MI: 51/48 - KERRY
PA: 58/42 - KERRY
IA: 50/48 - KERRY
WI: 53/47 - KERRY
MN: 57/42 - KERRY
NH: 58/41 - KERRY
ME: 55/44 - KERRY
NM: 49/49 - TIE
NV: 48/49 - BUSH
CO: 49/50 - BUSH
AR: 45/54 - BUSH
NC: 47/53 - BUSH

Yes, these are salty, but exciting!

General 2004 :: Tue Nov 2nd, 2004 at 05:03:39 PM EST :: 12 Comments




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usedtobesick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kicked
Looks impressive, though I don't understand a word of it. But just in case it's really useful, I'll kick it for ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
66. Hi usedtobesick!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. this is, to me, the key paragraph from the original Simon report:
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 07:10 PM by flowomo
"By 2am on Nov. 3 in the morning the publicly available exit poll results on the network news sites all changed. Activists still had the original results posted in blogs but they were no real comparison.

Which is why the following data study by Jonathan Simon of verifiedvoting.org is so remarkable.

As it turns out this study was only possible because of the computer crash reported by the Washington Post. While the boffins fiddled with their computers Simon with a considerable degree of foresight - downloaded as much data as he could off the publicly available sites.

The revision number of this data is not known and the original data from Edison - is now being sought by Scoop.co.nz in order to repeat this study with the full 4pm and 8pm data runs."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm
************************
And here's where I have had a problem all along.... what "publicly available sites" did Simon download from and where did THAT data come from? And most importantly: "THE REVISION NUMBER OF THIS DATA IS NOT KNOWN...."

The "exit poll" arguments are all based on some unknown amount of early polling that may or may not have been accurate or complete enough to make meaningful projections. From what I see, "the exit poll" is not a fixed entity, but a rolling accumulation of statistical data that converges toward a result.... presumably when the convergence is clear enough, a "call" is made as to who the winner will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. I don't understand
I don't quite understand what you are saying. The numbers on which this analysis was based were not from early exit polls. Almost all of them were apparently the latest exit polls available as of shortly after mid-night, Wednesday morning. So presumably they were the final exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did you send this to bbv?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. We have been in contact with the BBV people...
With regards to obtaining exit poll information. But no, I have yet to submit it to their email. Once again, you are all welcome to submit this information to any source you think will be valuable. In fact, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtime dfl_er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. I would love to see these numbers in graphics
you know, bars and pies and stuff? It's much more easy to grasp for idiots like me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. The exit polls were off because more women than men vote in the morning
and women were more pro-Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Reread the article.
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 07:21 PM by EOTE
The exit polls were broken down by gender. After the polls closed, CNN changed it's numbers for both women and men to show a several point swing for bush. That dog don't hunt.

On edit: also, the data used compares the final exit polls to the 'actual' results, so the time when women are more likely to vote is completely irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. If this were the case, why the selective discrepencies
between exit polls and the results? Shouldn't it have shown up across the board, and not just in battleground states, and specifically in counties using electronic voting machines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DELUSIONAL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
36. This is the PROPAGANDA line from Rove
Hey Guess What? WOMEN WORK!

This is also a line of B.S. -- cause it is very easy to tell a male from a female.

This Rove explanation has been debunked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I did...
And I found nothing in that article that refutes anything in my post. If you find anything in my post that's inaccurate, please let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. interested in your response to the point made in my post above.....
concerning the source of Simon's early exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Well....
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 08:04 PM by EOTE
I think the fact that his information is the only information that I can obtain regarding exit polls speaks volumes in and of itself. If anyone here has any other source for exit poll information that refutes the information that I currently have, I'd love to see it.

On edit: grammar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Me Too
I'm fucking dying for the raw exit poll data. It is NOT forthcoming to ANYONE and with NO explanation as to why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
43. Slate , DailyKos, and MDD had the first polls out the day of the election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. and that's the problem for me.....
all the exit poll arguments hang on the "data" --- and I'm not sure that all the studies are using the same data, or even what data they claim to be using individually. Simon uses the data described in my post -- and since it is whole foundation of his analysis, it doesn't nail down anything. I don't know how we can offer data that "refutes" Simon since we don't know what data Simon has. And neither does he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The method of how the exit polls were obtained....
is explained in the article. I'd love to have access to the complete and uniform data set, but this appears to be the best available. If one cannot obtain the full uncensored exit polls in an election where a good portion of the election machines are auditless, how are we to believe that this was a legitimate election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. exit polls are not public property, as election results are....
they are privately commissioned and privately owned. And I quoted you the passage from Simon about "how the exit polls were obtained" -- and it is not solid. It may or may not be valid data or some kind or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. So...
All throughout the day we are told how the exit polls are favorint Kerry in such states as Ohio and Florida. Then, the 'actual' results come in which differ greatly from said exit polls. Now we are unable to view the sole piece of information that would lead us to believe that we had a legitimate election in an era where a large number of voting machines are auditless? Are you kidding me? What info are we supposed to use? How are we to verify this was a legitimate election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. that is certainly the key question....
all I'm saying is that this Simon study might not be it. I'm looking forward to the recount in Ohio.... who knows what that might turn up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. But....
If there are a large number of auditless machines in Ohio, what good is the recount? If the machines that gave the margin of victory to bush can't be recounted, where are we without legitimate exit polls?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. The Data IS Valid
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 08:34 PM by Beetwasher
And indicative of the trend up until the last sampling...It's HIGHLY unlikely for that trend to reverse substantially (as it supposedly did) unless the methodology is suspect. As has been pointed out, the methodology does not account for the discrepancies from state to state, which should be uniform if the methodology was flawed.

Exit poll data is NOT like final results in which you have to wait for all precincts to report before getting an accurate overall picture. I believe they compile data from reports on the ground coming in from ALL sampled precincts before releasing a "wave" of data, so it WOULD indicate a trend in a uniform statewide sample.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jrobinson Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. Kicked
Graphics would be nice, but what are you gonna do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
67. Hi jrobinson!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tranceeternal Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
68. Hi tranceeternal!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
27. Very Well Done!
This prooves that there was systematic nation-wide rigging with swing states especially targetted. Either the official election counting by Diebold, etc. was rigged for Bush, or all the exit polls were rigged for Kerry.

We obviously need a very meticulous investigation of this, or we'll never be able to trust an election again. It's important to realize that the Bush Regime has been developing these fraud methods for some time, here's some great technical studies of election rigging in 2002:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/voting_machines.htm

We absolutely need to stick with this one until we Truth, Justice, and Change! We're right on the verge of losing our Democracy permanently...if we don't take care of what went wrong in this election, it will be gone until there's a revolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
28. Self serving kick.
Please help me keep this thread kicked. This need as much exposure as possible. Thanks in advance :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Hat's off to you, EOTE!
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 09:53 PM by maryallen
This is the kind of information which should be repeated over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
31. Nominated for the home page so it doesn't die.
Thanks for all your work, but you could use some paragraphing to make it easier to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Thanks.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm unable to edit now. If you'd like the original Word documents, private message me with your addy and I'll send them to you. Thanks again for the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Thanks for the offer. No I don't need it. I suggested the
paragraphing because it probably has a better chance of making the homepage if it's paragraphed with white spaces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DELUSIONAL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
33. Thanks to you dad for crunching the numbers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
35. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uhhuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
37. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeek Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
38. It's a great theory, but its not proof
I'm not saying I don't believe this happened, but no one has presented anything even close to proof.

Exit polls were wrong in 2002, 2000, and 1996. They were also famously wrong when Trueman won the presidency (1948?), and to a lessor extent when Kennedy beat Nixon. If there is one firmly established truth in this debate it is that exit polls are unreliable and innacurate.

Even if you could statistically prove this (which I don't think you can). What evidence do you have that it wasn't the exit polls that were fixed and fraudulent? It is certanly easier to fix a 2500 vote sample taken by several independant reporters then it is to fix the vote at a polling station manned by a comittee of partisan representatives, and sometimes lawyers, from both partys.

In states with 100% paper ballots you may be able to prove your theory, if you can get a recount. In states with the electronic voting machines we will never know if this is true or not, and that is why we need to get rid of those machines.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Say what?
Exit polling has an excellent track record. It shouldn't be abused to project close elections, but it's a solid indicator of potential election fraud.

And by the way, exit polling was invented in 1967 by Warren Mitofsky, so I don't think it had anything to with the "Dewey beats Truman"...

Like, duh... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot Acts Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Forget the exit polls...
...the answers are right in front of us. Yet the media tells us what they want to think about. More dis-information and mis-direction. Our voices must be heard... TOO MANY DAMN RIGHT WING SHOWS ON THE RADIO.

Look into Diebolt..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/yourmoney/09...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. What Would
You require the probabilities to be before you would call it proof?
One in a billion?
One in a trillion?
What would it have to be?
Prove to me that the sampling was wrong and the computers were correct!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeek Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
55. I would require a hand recount
And with the electronic voting machines we won't get that.

The whole theory that the exit polling is a more accurate predictor of how people voted then an actual vote count is false. The ballot count a larger sample size and from a statistical sense that makes it a more accurate representation of how people actually voted. Further the actual vote count is reflective of the actual votes cast and not how people say they voted or how they think they voted. Remember the 2000 election when several thousand Florida residents cast votes for Buchanon when they thought they voted for Gore. These were votes for Buchanon, but they would have been counted for Gore in the exit polls.

Now obviously fraud would and coould have changed the result, but the iidea that people should just accept the early exit polls as the "real" election results is in my opinion faced on faulty logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. I Reject Your
Assumption that "people should just accept the early exit polls as the "real" election results is in my opinion faced on faulty logic."

Everyone agrees that a hand count would reflect the true results. It is self evident, as that is what everyone is trying to get at, the actual value so to say. What would be left out are spoiled ballots and other "dirty" trick things.

In the absence of verifiable paper ballots or similar basic data, I would require proof that the black box part of things were not tampered. In a contest where the outcome is so large I expect that people will take full advantage of all the loopholes, be they legal or not. Based on that I will take the word of former white house security adviser Clark as presented in the article below.
My basis is that the black box count is biased when taken as a whole and the only alternate at this point are the exit polls.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D29B0874-8690-49...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. This makes no sense
The fact that the official vote count involves a larger sample size is completely irrelevant if the voting machines were programmed to give incaccurate results. Nor in that case would the "actual vote count" be at all reflective of the votes cast.

Furthermore, nobody is saying that early exit polls should be accepted. The final exit polls are greatly divergent from the "offical vote tallies". So divergent that the probability of that happening by chance are above 20 million to one at the very least.

This may not concern you, but I think that there are millions who are concerned enough that they feel that this ought to be thoroughly investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #42
57. Just an FYI.
That 1 in 20 million figure is only used because the statistical analysis program used only creates figures that low. The actual number might be much less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #38
50. Nonsense...
Exit polls were wrong in 2002, 2000, and 1996. They were also famously wrong when Trueman won the presidency (1948?), and to a lessor extent when Kennedy beat Nixon.

The exit polls were NOT wrong in 2000 (unless you declare that "Gore won Florida" is wrong :eyes: ), nor in 1996. 2002 had some serious discrepancies...and it also was the first election using electronic tallying under HAVA in large parts of the country. Coincidence?

Finally, your comments about Trueman (sic) are completely nonsensical, since there were no exit polls in that election. Nor, as far as I can tell, were there such polls in 1960, the other election you cite. Even if I'm wrong about the latter, they were surely early enough that the methodology hadn't been pinned down yet. As I recall it, exit polls only came to prominence in 1980.

It helps having your facts straight before making claims that "everyone knows" exit polls are unreliable. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeek Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. They were wrong in 2000
The exit polls declared Gore would win Florida by a substantial margin, and it turned out to be less then 1000 votes. I'm not argueing Gore didn't win Florida in 2000, but he didn't win by the 10000+ votes he was expected to when they called the state for him early in the night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. What is your source
for saying that the exit polls said Gore would win Florida by 10,000 votes? They simply said he would win -- I don't remember any numbers being given. But even if the exit polls did say that, they would have been correct with respect to intended vote, since analysis after the election showed that the butterfly ballot probably accounted for about 30,000 missed Gore votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharman Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #53
70. there's a reason for that
The exit polls showed a substantial Gore lead in FL because of an input error. The error was obvious and quickly corrected. So that explains the one time that the exit polls were (briefly) wrong.

Also, FL 2000 had an exceptional, huge amount of ballot spoilage (IMO, possible evidence of fraud, a different story). The WashPost studied the 120,000 ballots ruined by overvoting, and concluded that it cost Gore a net 50,000 votes. Plus the 6,000 that went erroneously to Buchanan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #38
56. Huh?
Exit polls in 1996 predicted wins for Clinton and Gore respectively. If the true will and intent of Florida voters was taken into account, Gore won Florida by a wide margin. How were those exit polls wrong?

As for fixing the exit polls, I can understand if they were wrong in one or two instances, but what we have is a completely systematic occurance here. This is not a fluke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
45. EARLY / LATER EXIT POLLS ON NOV. 2 ND!!!!!!!!
Edited on Sat Nov-13-04 06:20 AM by Roxy66
(NOTE TIMES.....)

http://www.mydd.com/section/general/2

Early VNS exit polling
by Jerome Armstrong

Here is some of the early VNS data(correction, National Election Pool, not VNS), fwiw:

AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
Now, mind that these are early numbers. And even if correct, they reflect the ones most wanting to vote, and it's still a long way to go... but wow, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire & Minnesota voters can't wait to boot Bush!

General 2004 :: Tue Nov 2nd, 2004 at 01:57:56 PM EST :: 53 Comments
..................................

Latest Exit Polls from Slate
by Chris Bowers

FL: 50/49 - KERRY
OH: 52/47 - KERRY
MI: 51/48 - KERRY
PA: 58/42 - KERRY
IA: 50/48 - KERRY
WI: 53/47 - KERRY
MN: 57/42 - KERRY
NH: 58/41 - KERRY
ME: 55/44 - KERRY
NM: 49/49 - TIE
NV: 48/49 - BUSH
CO: 49/50 - BUSH
AR: 45/54 - BUSH
NC: 47/53 - BUSH

Yes, these are salty, but exciting!

General 2004 :: Tue Nov 2nd, 2004 at 05:03:39 PM EST :: 12 Comments


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. troll, if Bush didn't win, what koolaid would you be drinking?
kick this thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
48. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
diabhal Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
52. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Roosevelt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
54. From Buzzflash - read the report from a Penn professor
Edited on Sat Nov-13-04 09:10 AM by T Roosevelt
November 11, 2004

The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

11/12/04 4:48 PM Update: PDF link goes to version "00l."

BuzzFlash was forwarded a copy of a new research paper (271k PDF) on the exit polls from the 2004 election.

In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman says:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Freeman, "250,000,000 to one." That's 250 MILLION to ONE.

He concludes the paper with this:

"Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate."

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. This is a great article
It is better documented than my dad's article, with a great discussion of the accuracy of exit poll data. But it doesn't analyze all of the states, like my dad's analysis did.

The bottom line is that this and my dad's analysis came to the exact same conclusion: Random error (chance) as an explanation of the discrepancies is ruled out, at a probability level ranging in the tens or hundreds of millions or more. Therefore, either the exit polls or the election itself must have been seriously flawed. They both agree that the latter is far more likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
59. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. And another
Thanks, EOTE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Thank you.
And another plea to send this information out to anyone who can get this out to the mainstream media. Thanks again for everyone's help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Threedifferentones Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
65. Punt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lildreamer316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
71. kick...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
72. Kick! N/M
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tommcintyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
73. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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 Nov 21st 2017, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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