THE PROBABILITY IS ZERO: THANK YOU, BILL GATES, FOR GIVING US EXCEL.
Edited on Sat Dec-04-04 02:56 PM by TruthIsAll
It makes it all so easy to raise the eyebrows of those who
refuse to believe.
Historically, exit polls have been much more accurate than
standard polls. In prior calculations, I have
(conservatively) used the standard polling MOE methodology to
compute probabilities based on deviations from the Exit polls.
Using standard polling MOE's does not make much sense
intuitively. We should consider historically proven EXIT POLL
So let's be a little more realistic this time and assume that
the Exit Poll margin of error in each state is 2.0%, even
though all historical evidence indicates that it's less than
half that (see Germany, Ukraine, France etc.) So we are still
being very CONSERVATIVE in this assumption.
Now let's take another look at the election results:
For Bush, vote tallies in 23 states were outside the 2.0% MOE
- all in his favor.
For Kerry, vote tallies in 2 states were outside the 2.0% MOE
- all in his favor.
So here we go again. I'm almost sorry to do have to do this.
Let's calculate the probability (for Bush) of this occurring
under the 2.0% MOE criteria.
I ran the numbers in Excel as before, with a single input
parameter changed to calculate the odds that at least 23
states would be beyond the the MOE.
We input 22 as the number of states inclusive. The probability
is still .025 that the MOE would be exceeded. See the
description of the BINOMDIST below.
So, once again, let's calculate the probability:
Probability= P = 1-BINOMDIST(22, 51, 0.025, TRUE)
P = 0.000000000000000000000000000000E+00
IT'S A BIG FAT ZERO.ZILCH.NADA! THIRTY OF THEM.
EXCEL WON'T PRINT ANY MORE THAN 30 DECIMALS!
To compute the odds, we must calculate 1/P.
P = ZERO
We can't divide by ZERO. No can do.
What does this mean?
It's BEYOND INFINITESMAL!
THE DEVIATIONS IN FAVOR OF BUSH COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BY
THE PROBABILITY THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO CHANCE IS ZERO!
THANK YOU, BILL GATES, FOR GIVING EXCEL TO AMERICA.
OH, AND THANK YOU, TOO, LOTUS.
I USED 1-2-3 LONG BEFORE EXCEL.
Number_s is the number of successes in trials = 22 (at most
22 would fall within the MOE, at least 23 above)
Trials is the number of independent trials = 51
Probability_s is the probability of success on each trial=
If cumulative is TRUE (which it is), then BINOMDIST returns
the cumulative distribution function, which is the probability
that there are at most number_s successes; if FALSE, it
returns the probability mass function, which is the
probability that there are number_s successes.
Size refers to the exit poll sample size for the given state.
The percentages are Kerry's Exit Polls and reported Votes.
State Size Exit Vote Diff StDev MoE Prob >MoE? Favor
DE 770 58.50% 53.54% -4.96% 1.80% 3.53% 0.29 yes Bush
NH 1849 55.40% 50.51% -4.89% 1.16% 2.28% 0.00 yes Bush
VT 685 65.00% 60.20% -4.80% 1.91% 3.74% 0.60 yes Bush
SC 1735 46.00% 41.41% -4.59% 1.20% 2.35% 0.01 yes Bush
NE 785 36.76% 32.32% -4.44% 1.78% 3.50% 0.64 yes Bush
AK 910 40.50% 36.08% -4.42% 1.66% 3.25% 0.38 yes Bush
AL 730 41.00% 37.00% -4.00% 1.85% 3.63% 1.53 yes Bush
NC 2167 48.00% 44.00% -4.00% 1.07% 2.11% 0.01 yes Bush
NY 1452 63.00% 59.18% -3.82% 1.31% 2.57% 0.18 yes Bush
CT 872 58.50% 55.10% -3.40% 1.69% 3.32% 2.24 yes Bush
RI 809 64.00% 60.61% -3.39% 1.76% 3.45% 2.68 yes Bush
MA 889 66.00% 62.63% -3.37% 1.68% 3.29% 2.21 yes Bush
PA 1930 54.35% 51.00% -3.35% 1.14% 2.23% 0.16 yes Bush
MS 798 43.26% 40.00% -3.26% 1.77% 3.47% 3.29 yes Bush
OH 1963 52.10% 49.00% -3.10% 1.13% 2.21% 0.30 yes Bush
FL 2846 50.51% 47.47% -3.03% 0.94% 1.84% 0.06 yes Bush
MN 2178 54.50% 51.52% -2.98% 1.07% 2.10% 0.27 yes Bush
UT 798 30.50% 27.55% -2.95% 1.77% 3.47% 4.78 yes Bush
ID 559 33.50% 30.61% -2.89% 2.11% 4.14% 8.60 yes Bush
AZ 1859 47.00% 44.44% -2.56% 1.16% 2.27% 1.38 yes Bush
VA 1000 47.96% 45.45% -2.50% 1.58% 3.10% 5.66 yes Bush
LA 1669 44.50% 42.42% -2.08% 1.22% 2.40% 4.49 yes Bush
IL 1392 57.00% 55.00% -2.00% 1.34% 2.63% 6.78 yes Bush
WI 2223 52.50% 50.51% -1.99% 1.06% 2.08% 3.00 Bush
WV 1722 45.25% 43.43% -1.82% 1.20% 2.36% 6.54 Bush
NM 1951 51.30% 49.49% -1.81% 1.13% 2.22% 5.54 Bush
CO 2515 49.10% 47.47% -1.63% 1.00% 1.95% 5.15 Bush
IN 926 41.00% 39.39% -1.61% 1.64% 3.22% 16.42 Bush
GA 1536 43.00% 41.41% -1.59% 1.28% 2.50% 10.69 Bush
MO 2158 47.50% 46.00% -1.50% 1.08% 2.11% 8.17 Bush
NJ 1520 55.00% 53.54% -1.46% 1.28% 2.51% 12.67 Bush
WA 2123 54.95% 53.54% -1.41% 1.09% 2.13% 9.70 Bush
IA 2502 50.65% 49.49% -1.15% 1.00% 1.96% 12.41 Bush
AR 1402 46.60% 45.45% -1.15% 1.34% 2.62% 19.55 Bush
KY 1034 41.00% 40.00% -1.00% 1.55% 3.05% 26.01 Bush
OK 1539 35.00% 34.00% -1.00% 1.27% 2.50% 21.63 Bush
MI 2452 52.50% 51.52% -0.98% 1.01% 1.98% 16.47 Bush
NV 2116 49.35% 48.48% -0.87% 1.09% 2.13% 21.29 Bush
ME 1968 54.75% 54.08% -0.66% 1.13% 2.21% 27.80 Bush
MD 1000 57.00% 56.57% -0.43% 1.58% 3.10% 39.18 Bush
DC 795 91.00% 90.91% -0.09% 1.77% 3.48% 47.96 Bush
MT 640 39.76% 39.80% 0.04% 1.98% 3.87% 50.72 Kerry
OR 1064 51.20% 52.00% 0.80% 1.53% 3.00% 69.91 Kerry
HI 499 53.30% 54.55% 1.25% 2.24% 4.39% 71.10 Kerry
TX 1671 37.00% 38.38% 1.38% 1.22% 2.40% 87.10 Kerry
TN 1774 41.50% 43.00% 1.50% 1.19% 2.33% 89.68 Kerry
CA 1919 54.00% 55.56% 1.56% 1.14% 2.24% 91.35 Kerry
SD 1495 37.76% 39.39% 1.63% 1.29% 2.53% 89.65 Kerry
ND 649 34.00% 36.36% 2.36% 1.96% 3.85% 88.58 yes Kerry
KS 654 35.00% 37.37% 2.37% 1.96% 3.83% 88.76 yes Kerry
Avg 1450 49.18% 47.38% -1.80% 1.42% 2.79% 21.67 Bush
Med 1507.5 49.23% 47.47% -1.81% 1.29% 2.52% 6.66 Bush
I live in KS. In the burbs of KC. That variation is from liberals out here in the burbs and libs from Douglas County - ie The University of Kansas. It's located about 30 short miles from KC. Although still outnumbered by wealthy Bush supporters in my area.....I was inspired to see - quite unexpectedly - great support for Kerry in the burbs. Saw F 9/11 in two different burb theaters and both shows...sold out ending in standing ovation. And this is one of the reddest states of all.
It's those fuckers down in Southern Kansas and Western Kansas that vote Red.
careful, now. it's statistically impossible for shrub to have won
unless there was some systemic difference between the exit polls and the official vote.
fraud is the obvious explanation, but in theory there are many, such as the entirely unsubstantiated banana republican claims that kerry voters were more likely to talk to exit pollers or that the kerry voters voted earlier, when the exit pollers were out in force.
but tia's statistical arguments put the burden of proof for these cockamamie hypotheses squarely on the banana republicans, who, as of yet, have produced a big fat zero.
What it says is that it is almost impossible for Bush to have exceeded the MOEs based on chance alone.
That's all the binomial distribution can tell us in this case. It can tell us nothing about what the cause of the deviance actually is, only that the cause is not chance alone.
Fraud surely is one possible explanation, and I think there was fraud. But there are dozens, hundreds if we want to get creative, of others.
Consider the following, the probability of being dealt any particular hand in poker is 1/2,598,860. So, if your sitting there looking at a 3C, 7D, 4D, 6H, and 9S you would have in your hand a combination of cards that, in theory would take 2,598,860 deals to get again, a very rare and unlikely event. But, that hand is utterly unremarkable. The point here is that, even if something is unlikely and of low probability the occurance of that event is not, a priori, important in any meaningful sense.
There are parallels with this voting issue. The probability of the final tally's devating beyond the MOE of last exit poll in each state is probabably 1/20, which expresses the industry standard 95% confidence interval. Since we're concerned with only Bush "victory" outside the MOE, the probability in each state is roughly 1/40. That means one time out of 40 the polling will be wrong, due to the chance error of the sample estimate. The power of statistics is very limited here, the poll may be wrong more often than that due to other issues, be they methodological, functional, circumstances beyond the scope of the study or false assumptions.
Granted, though we may not think it terribly noteworthy if the MOE was exceeded in one state, the aggregate of 22, or however many, states is a different thing. But it is not entirely dissimilar. True, the aggregate calculations will drive down the error due to chance to infintessimal levels, but it also sums the myriad other errors or effects that could account for the wrong numbers in the first place. The question statisticians must always ask is if the numbers they're looking at are actually meaningful.
I don't think this near zero number TruthforAll calculated is particularly meaningful. We could tell, on its face - without any statistical calculation, that it would be unlikely anyone could exceed the MOE solely due to chance in some many instances. After a certain point, a point we'd reach very early on, the magnitude of the number loses any significance in the real world. It does so partly because it so large, partly because it is express only that which we already knew, and partly because it cannot, and does not pretend to, account for any other possibilities of variation beyond chance. Those other possibilities are what are meaningful now, and we don't have them. What we need is an indicator of the liklihood of fraud compared to other sources or variation. What this near zero number does tell us, positively, is that it is more likely that fraud accounts for the difference than does chance, but how much more is anyone's guess. And, whether or not that is meaningful, I leave for others to decide.
51. I still don't know that to be true from these data
I can suspect it to be true based on other evidence, but no one could come to that conclusion based on these numbers.
And, I think it remains to be sseen whether or not fraud is the "overwhelming reason" for the differences in variance. We know that it's not chance and that it must be something else. We suspect fraud is a part of that something else, but we need tons more data, from many different sources, and different types of analyses before adjudicating the role fraud plays in this.
So far we only know that it plays some role, it still may turn out to be very small.
72. No, I must disagree with your final, bold statement.
You say: "What this near zero number does tell us, positively, is that it is more likely that fraud accounts for the difference than does chance, but how much more is anyone's guess. And, whether or not that is meaningful, I leave for others to decide".
That is NOT what the analysis shows.
A ZERO probability means there is NO possibility WHATSOEVER that the deviations could have been due to CHANCE. NONE.
The deviations were due to something else: 1- Fraud 2- Lousy exit polling samples
But if it's lousy polling, one must still ask the question: Why are 23 states of 41 exceeding the MOE in favor of Bush, but only 2 of 10 in favor of Kerry?
9. rephrase, please: thank you LOTUS, for giving us 1-2-3
if you want to thank bill gates for stealing all of 1-2-3's features, be my guest. but please, give the real credit where credit it due.
honestly, bill gates never did anything more than figure out how HE could get rich from other people's inventions, innovations, and hard work.
and i'm not talking about this usual anti-capitalist argument about how owners get rich off their employee's. no, bill gates' way of getting rich involves getting rich off the work of OTHER COMPANIES, through stealing, undercutting, leveraging off their operating system monopoly, and other anticompetitive practices.
19. true, 1-2-3 wasn't invented out of whole cloth either
but 1-2-3 actually WAS a creative innovation, and included many important features that visi-calc lacked (though i admit i haven't done this debate for so long i've forgotten the details. i know database functions were one large category that 1-2-3 added, and statistical functions as well, i think).
excel didn't really add ANYTHING that 1-2-3 lacked, unless you want to count integration with ms word and other ms office products, which is tantamount to admitting that they were leveraging off their other products.
when I first started using computers on an IBM1620, to run a program, first we had to run the "loader" deck of cards thru the card reader, (we used only punched cards, no hard disk was available LOL), then we loaded the compiled object language deck of cards, and then the subroutine deck of cards, followed by input data deck.
The computer then could either type out the answers or punch cards. Since the memory available to the programmer was so freakng small, most of our engineering calculation programs required many segmentations to do the entire job. Which meant the answers from first segment program were punched out on cards, the next segment then processed (loader, 2nd segemnt program, subroutines, punched deck from 1st segment). One of our programs required 25 segments to finish the job, so it took half a day to make one run!
I was ecstatic when IBK came out with the 1130 which had a hard disk so we did not need punched cards. If my memory is right, the disk capacity was 400,000 bytes = 0.4 meg.
i'm so pissed that he bought out foxpro in order to deprecate it and replace it with ms access, which SUCKS.
in 9 months, i single-handedly created a foxpro call center application that handled simultaneous 150 users and 1/4 billion dollars worth of car loans, including sending out monthly statements with usps barcoding and discounts.
one of my programmers later ported the back end to oracle, in her spare time over the course of only 2 months.
ms access tends to choke on FOUR simultaneous users, and a visual basic/sql server application would have taken too long to develop.
...that little 2-state anomaly for Kerry. What do you make of it?
(I've been saying all error favors Bush, and people understand that as impossible--can't be innocent human or machine error. Now I can't say that--that every error or differential favors Bush. Boo-hoo. My sentences and paragraphs summarizing the election fraud will have to get longer.)
28. What if you subtracted 2 states from the * anomalies?
Would that be an acceptable practice?
I think it would be interesting to see a graph of the probabilities from the point where it becomes unlikely that it happened due to chance. IE, This bar is the probability of 2 deviations, this one is 3, 4, ... 23.
There are plenty of explanations for this. Maybe certain voters were more likely to respond to the pollers. Maybe some people didn't tell the truth. Either way, Bush did win. All you conspericy therorists are making us look bad.
Please send this to Conyers, the Kerry campaign and others associated with the Ohio legal challenge, Olbermann, Palast, hell - anybody on the planet who can do anything with it. Many thanks for taking the time to compile this and share it with DU.
I just think that all the "proof" that's been offered up is a little flaky. Exit polls are by no means completely binding to how people actually voted. The possibility for fraud is there, but I've yet to see anything very convincing.
I would like those early exit polls to be correct, but for my state, Utah, I don't believe they are. Brigham Young University has been doing statewide exit polls for over twenty years. They have a very good reputation for accuracy. They show Kerry with 26.5% of the vote; Mitofsky's numbers are 4% higher. Exit polls are traditionally accurate; something is wrong. If all states had independent exit polls, it might shed some light. Mitofsky must make his data and methodology public.
...I had read the letter within moments of it being released by Congressman Conyers.
But, as I thought about it during the past 24 hours I realized that Mr Mitofsky needed to be put on notice by the Congressman that a full list of pollsters, their contact information and details of exactly where and over what intervals each of them conducted interviews on 2 Nov 2004 was crucial information.
And, it is important for Mr Mitofsky to know now that we are all focused not just on the need for him to release the 'raw' data but also the exact information on whom collected that data at each polling station and at what time.
48. Almost. There is a 100% probability that the deviations in
Edited on Sat Dec-04-04 05:26 PM by TruthIsAll
Bush's tallies from the exit polls must have been due to either fraud or mistabulation or both.
It's like pornography. We know it when wee see it.
We can be damn sure it was FRAUD, and not just lousy exit polling.
Now they must prove the fraud with documented cases of machine "glitches" working in favor of Bush, minority disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, registration fraud, lack of polling equipment in democratic precincts, rigging of late night exit polls to match the rigged votes, etc.
I have noticed a frame set up by the hard right on this topic. They are asking us to "prove it was fraud." I say horse poop on that - we need reliable elections or the supposed winner (regardless of party) will be illegitimate.
I challenge the defenders of the current abomination of an electoral process to prove that it is reliable. Simple things like random audits and transparency would be a good start. Anyone opposed to such simple safe guards must have nefraious objectives. If anyone wants to argue with that statement, I challenge them to prove that people who do not want security measures on our voting system are not doing so in order to cheat in the next election.
There is more than one explanation for this situation. There is that there was fraud. However there also is the idea that the exit polls simply polled too many minorities (ie they went to too many minority areas). Theres also the idea that the exit polls were done before the time when most republicans vote (exit polls were done at 4 and republicans come at like 6 mostly).
The second two sadly seem more credible and easily explainable to me.
I worked the polls...there was a constant, steady stream of traffic ALL DAY. There were 10 hour lines in some place. That hypothesis seems far less likely to me than the statistical analysis, as does the likelihood that during THIS election (and only elections involving George W. Bush, historically) that they just happened to poll too many blacks. THOSE are stretches. The analysis seems far more likely, imo.
I've been working on looking at historical exit polling (2000 and 2002 congressional) to use to give some historical perspective to how impossible your 2004 results are. I have some questions:
1) Where did you get the data for the 2004 exit polls? Can you give me a link to a primary source?
2) Do you have any idea where I can get the *raw* exit poll data from historical elections? I've been using CNN's and MSNBC's old data, and there are differences between them, so they must have used different weighting of the raw data. I've looked at ICPSR's data at http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/03527.xml but it looks like I would have to be a member of ICPSR to get the weighting data.
I'm a data-crunching machine and I new some raw data to crunch!
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.