Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

THE 2000 NATIONAL EXIT POLL: ACCURATE TO WITHIN 0.5%

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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 10:53 AM
Original message
THE 2000 NATIONAL EXIT POLL: ACCURATE TO WITHIN 0.5%
Edited on Sun Feb-20-05 11:47 AM by TruthIsAll
www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=N1 

This confirms the accuracy of the 1996 Exit Poll.

It would be interesting to see a one-sheet comparison of the
four National Exit Polls since 1992.

1996 PARTY ID WEIGHTS:
DEM 39.4%
REP 34.7%
IND 25.9%

Clinton won the NEP: 48.17-41.16-8.49%
CLINTON WON THE VOTE: 49.20-40.7-8.40%
RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
WITHIN 1.03%!

2000 PARTY ID WEIGHTS:
DEM 39%
REP 35%
IND 26%

Gore won the NEP: 48.29-48.09-2.44%
GORE WON THE VOTE: 48.38-47.87-2.74%
RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
WITHIN .09%!

2004 NEP PARTY-ID WEIGHTS: 
THIS IS FROM THE WP 13,047 RESPONDENT VERSION - BEFORE LATER
CONTAMINATION USING 37/37/26 WEIGHTING:
DEM 38%
REP 35%
IND 27%

Kerry won the NEP: 50.76-47.91-1.02%
BUSH WON THE VOTE: 50.73-48.28-0.99%
WHAT HAPPENED?
A 2.82% DISCREPANCY! 


2000 National Exit Poll	Demographic Weighting					
						
SUMMARY
CATEGORY	GORE	BUSH	NADER		
Gender	       48.24	47.80	2.48		
Race	      48.46	47.91	2.73		
AGE	      48.66	48.05	2.51		
Education	47.59	48.72	2.48		
Income	       48.19	48.28	2.30		
PartyID	       48.04	48.36	2.69		
Ideology	47.73	48.22	2.55		
1stTime	       48.36	47.55	2.18		
Voted		48.64	47.81	2.37		
Decided     48.13	48.55	2.20		
Religion	48.55	48.07	2.71		
ImpIssue	48.92	47.79	2.02		
									
AVERAGE	       48.29	48.09	2.44					
Actual	       48.38	47.87 	2.74					
Difference	 0.42	-0.27	-0.31					
									
MIX%  		        Horizontal			Weighted		
Gender			GORE	BUSH	NADER		GORE	BUSH	NADER
48		Male	42	53	3		20.16	25.44	1.44
52		Female 54	43	2		28.08	22.36	1.04
100							48.24	47.80	2.48
									
Race									
81		White	42	54	3		34.02	43.74	2.43
10		Black	90	9	1		9.00	0.90	0.10
7		Latino 62	35	2		4.34	2.45	0.14
2		Asian	55	41	3		1.10	0.82	0.06
100							48.46	47.91	2.73
									
									
AGE									
17		18-29	48	46	5		8.16	7.82	0.85
33		30-44	48	49	2		15.84	16.17	0.66
28		45-59	48	49	2		13.44	13.72	0.56
22		60+	51	47	2		11.22	10.34	0.44
100							48.66	48.05	2.51
									
Education									
5		NoHS	59	39	1		2.95	1.95	0.05
21		H.S.	48	49	1		10.08	10.29	0.21
32		Colle	45	51	3		14.40	16.32	0.96
24		CGrad	45	51	3		10.80	12.24	0.72
18		Post	52	44	3		9.36	7.92	0.54
100							47.59	48.72	2.48
									
Income									
7		<15	57	37	4		3.99	2.59	0.28
16		15-30	54	41	3		8.64	6.56	0.48
24		30-50	49	48	2		11.76	11.52	0.48
25		50-75	46	51	2		11.50	12.75	0.50
13		75-100 45	52	2		5.85	6.76	0.26
15		100+	43	54	2		6.45	8.10	0.30
100							48.19	48.28	2.30
									
PartyID									
39		Dem	86	11	2		33.54	4.29	0.78
35		Rep	8	91	1		2.80	31.85	0.35
26		Ind	45	47	6		11.70	12.22	1.56
100							48.04	48.36	2.69
									
Ideology
21		Lib	80	13	6		16.80	2.73	1.26
50		Mod	52	44	2		26.00	22.00	1.00
29		Con	17	81	1		4.93	23.49	0.29
100							47.73	48.22	2.55
									
First Time Vote									
9		Yes	52	43	4		4.68	3.87	0.36
91		No	48	48	2		43.68	43.68	1.82
100							48.36	47.55	2.18
									
Voted in 1996 for									
47		Clinton	82	15	2		38.54	7.05	0.94
32		Dole	7	91	1		2.24	29.12	0.32
6		Perot	27	64	7		1.62	3.84	0.42
2		Other	26	52	15		0.52	1.04	0.30
13		None	44	52	3		5.72	6.76	0.39
100							48.64	47.81	2.37
									
When Decided									
11		3days	48	46	5		5.28	5.06	0.55
6		week	48	44	5		2.88	2.64	0.30
13		month	49	45	5		6.37	5.85	0.65
70		Before48	50	1		33.60	35.00	0.70
100							48.13	48.55	2.20
									
Religion									
54		Prot	42	56	2		22.68	30.24	1.08
27		Cath	50	47	2		13.50	12.69	0.54
4		Jewish 79	19	1		3.16	0.76	0.04
6		Other	62	28	7		3.72	1.68	0.42
9		None	61	30	7		5.49	2.70	0.63
100							48.55	48.07	2.71
									
Most Important Issue									
12		ForPol 40	54	4		4.80	6.48	0.48
7		Medcar 60	39	1		4.20	2.73	0.07
8		Health 64	33	3		5.12	2.64	0.24
18		Econ	 59	37	2		10.62	6.66	0.36
14		Taxes	 17	80	2		2.38	11.20	0.28
15		Educ	 52	44	3		7.80	6.60	0.45
14		SocSec 58	40	1		8.12	5.60	0.14
12		Other	 49	49	2		5.88	5.88	0.24
100							48.92	47.79	2.02
									
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. You are going from the early, accurate, exit polls, and not the
final ones. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Got them off the web site.
Compare the Party ID weights for 1996 and 2000 to the 2004 NEP (13,047 respondents). They closely match the 38/35/27 split - not the "official" 37/37/26.

You can believe the partyID split is 37/37/26, I don't.
I believe it's bogus.

The real split is still 38/35/27, which is virtually the same as 1996 and 2000 (39/35/26). I assume that you would agree, having seen the Uscountvotes.org analysis.

Or do you believe in the Reluctant Bush Responder pablum?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #23
59. I was only wrong in assuming that the '96 and '00 exit
Edited on Fri Feb-25-05 02:25 AM by TruthIsAll
polls were legitimate. Now I realize that they are not the original real exit polls, just the final versions cooked to match the vote count.

Yes, I was fooled.
Just like millions of others.
Please accept my Mea Culpa.

You guys are right. The "weighted" exit polls are exactly correct - because they adjust the initial "raw" data with the vote count, which of course as we all know is very accurate.
And we all know that the "raw", unadjusted data is very dirty.

Please forgive me.
I realize I've been wrong all along.
The vote counts are 100% accurate, and the final exit poll proves it.
The final exit poll is extremely accurate, because the vote count proves it.
It's all very clear now.

So, let's do away with the exit polls, as the Republicans are suggesting.
Who needs them?


After all, the final exit poll will always confirm the vote anyway.
And the vote count is always accurate.
So then must the final exit poll.

Please excuse me now.
My head is spinning.

I feel like Alice in Wonderland.

White is black.
Black is white.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #59
83. Make up your mind
Despite your sarcasm, you have yet to take a consistent position on this issue. Either the early exit polls are correct, in which case ALL prior elections were secretly fixed by Republicans since 1988, all with massive risk and NO gain for it in any year except this one; or the final exit polls are accuarte and the early exit polls are not, in which case you have nothing to show for all your work this year.

Pick a position, TIA. Are early exit polls accurate and all elections since 1988 secretly fixed at great risk and no gain except for this year? Take a stand already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. What is your opinion of the usefulness of comparing precinct exit poll....
data with precinct vote counts, to identify precincts having possible tabulator fraud (which would then be further investigated with recounts)?

Precinct exit poll data is more "pure" that state/national exit poll data. But the MOE is greater.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-07-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. Its a different kettle of fish
We're addressing the national exit poll, not a specific state poll. I think that it has merit, but I think it will ultimately function to better undermine our trust in NEP's exit polling, than in partisan run BOEs.

I am willing to bet that you stand a good chance of identifying at the precinct level discrepancies which may be indicative of fraud if you are addressing Texas, Ohio, or Florida (maybe New Mexico or Iowa) but less so with other states. All it would show is that problems exist in the electoral college tabulation, not the popular vote, and you probably don't require an exit poll to establish this, the documentary evidence already exists.

I am not at all sure that precinct level comparisons should have a greater MOE, I would think it the tightest, because your level of comparison is apt. It is with the extrapolation to greater numbers that the MOE should increase. Take the Minivis thread--three precincts for each congressional district, you have sampled maybe a 1,000 persons for say a 300,000 voter turnout--ideally your precision should be at a magnitude of plus or minus 100 for each congressional district.

To have it lower, there has to be a historic performance that the US exit polls link and compare to, and to make this requires an implicit assumption that elections are fair. The only test I can imagine to address this is a goodness of fit comparison.

I was quite taken aback that for the entire US, only three individuals of Jewish background were sampled (of approximately six million total, and if any ethnic minority clusters, it is the Jews, so we know NEP is probably not doing center and edge sampling of population clusters, but aggregate and heterogeneous precincts), but the NEP poll estimated support at 70% (I'm pulling this out of my memory, let me know if I have it wrong). I compared this to turnout in congressional districts I am familiar with in Los Angeles area, and it looked to me that support appeared to be in the 80% range to explain the patterns I observed. This in part makes me think that the exit poll at this time is GIGO, and we are wasting breathe and energy addressing this as if it were the ultimate test for fraud. I would like to see the poll with greater numbers sampled (1%, not the .01% that the approximately 13,000 sifted respondents represents) and greater redundancy.

The problem is of course, is that what if there are no precinct discrepancies, what would this undermine? Many assume that thousands of people might be in on the tabulator/black box scam, but the same conspirators don't have access to the precinct sample locations? Imagine if they specifically left these untainted?

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-07-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Mitofsky says that the MOE for samples under 100 is 6%.
Thanks very much for your response, mgr. I will ponder it.

Regarding the MOE for the NEP national/state/precinct polls, minvis says Mitofsky stated that the national poll MOE is 1%; a state poll MOE is 4%; and for samples under 100, the MOE is 6%. (Precinct samples vary from 20 to 60 people sampled.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-07-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Thanks for the memory prompt
That seems counter-intuitive, and the precinct numbers reflect the non-response pattern, but that MOE should not shrink with higher approximations. You get sixty here, forty there, how is it the MOE drops, unless the weighting is applied at each level, and has its own arbitrary MOE; or is the precinct level work done a priori and the rest a posteriori? My experience with statistics does not get it.

Guess I will research that as well.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. These figures?
Were the 1996 and 2000 figures from the "early exit poll figures" like the ones you have selected to use for your calculations, or "the later exit poll figures", "the 'weighted' exit poll figures", or "the final figures produced in August or September 2001", or "The TIA weighted final final figures"?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. these figures? figures.
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 02:29 AM by TruthIsAll
		2004				2000				1996		
DEMOGRAPHIC	Kerry	Bush	Nader		GORE	BUSH	NADER		Clinton	Dole	Perot

Female/Male 	54/46				52/48				52/48		
Gender		50.78%	48.22%	1.00%		48.24%	47.80%	2.48%		48.72%	40.88%	8.44%

Race		50.94%	47.86%	1.00%		48.46%	47.91%	2.73%		48.76%	41.12%	8.34%
Age		50.53%	48.17%	1.00%		48.66%	48.05%	2.51%		48.85%	40.53%	8.69%
Education	50.21%	48.05%	1.17%		47.59%	48.72%	2.48%		49.02%	39.64%	9.41%
Income		51.42%	48.12%	0.95%		48.19%	48.28%	2.30%		48.89%	40.79%	7.45%

Dem/Rep/Ind	38/35/27		          39/35/26     	    39/35/26
PartyId		50.69%	47.77%	0.92%		48.04%	48.36%	2.69%		48.74%	40.77%	8.46%

Ideology	49.85%	48.15%	1.00%		47.73%	48.22%	2.55%		48.99%	41.14%	8.27%
PrevVote	50.90%	47.09%	1.19%		48.64%	47.81%	2.37%		48.75%	41.18%	8.16%
Decided		51.23%	47.95%	0.54%		48.13%	48.55%	2.20%		48.63%	39.97%	8.58%
Religion	50.85%	47.90%	1.18%		48.55%	48.07%	2.71%		48.22%	39.76%	9.23%
												

Average		50.74%	47.93%	1.00%		48.22%	48.18%	2.50%		48.76%	40.58%	8.50%
Actual		48.28%	50.73%	0.99%		48.36%	47.87%	2.74%		49.20%	40.70%	8.40%

Diff		-2.46%	2.80%	-0.01%		0.14%	-0.31%	0.24%		0.44%	0.12%	-0.10%


.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The 1996 and 2000 figures .....
Which set are they:

1. The early election day exit poll figures?

2. The late election day exit poll figures?

3. The final exit poll figures released in Aug or Sept 2001.

Just a simple answer will do. No spreadsheet required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I got them from the MSNBC and CNN sites.
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 09:12 AM by TruthIsAll
1996 was posted on 11/06/96:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit...

If you have the answer, why do you keep asking me? Is it that you have a problem with the numbers? Are they too accurate for you?

If you don't have the answer, I gave you the site. If it's so important to you, check it out on Msnbc and CNN.

So awsie, what is your point?

1) That by not using comparable exit poll data posted the day after the election, I am deliberately skewing the results for the purpose of misleading DUers into believing that prior exit polls have been accurate?

Or is it..

2) That I am sadly misinformed in using this final, "weighted" data, only released after a long and arduous 6-month effort by Mitofsky, since it is not comparable to the 2004 exit poll of 13,047 displayed Nov. 3 on the Washington Post site?

Mitofsky's ONLY explanation for the exit poll discrepancy was his now-debunked theory of the reluctant Bush responder. Uscountvotes.org laid that one to rest.

I also don't recall him bringing up the "cluster effect" on the margin of error or the use of the so-called "raw", unadjusted data data downloaded at 12:22 am by Simon.

So, who do you believe: Edison/Mitofsky or Uscountvotes.org?

Before replying to my post, as I am sure you will, could you include your own analysis in your reply. I am waiting in breathless anticipation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The Edison/Mitofsky figures.........
The Edison/Mitofsky figures are apples that ripened in August of the year following the elections in 1996 and 2000.

The 2004 figures are oranges and still hanging on the tree. In August or so of 2005 figures will be released that have been fully weighted. With these figures you will be able to compare to the 1996, 2000 and 2004 results ....apples to apples.

The basic flaw in ALL of your posts is that you are using Mitofsky's results from 1996 and 2000 to dispute Mitofsky's results for 2004...... and the punchline is ...... Mitofsky hasn't even released the 2004 FINAL results yet.

If Mitofsky can't be trusted in 2004 then he couldn't be trusted in 1996 or 2000 so why bother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. In your own words .........
"Then what was Mitofsky's 77-page report? Chopped liver?"

Which seems to be in support of the report.

Then you said:

"Ten PhD's peer-reviewed the 5-page paper which debunks the only theory Mitofsky has given to explain away the discrepancies. In his report, Mitofsky offer no explanation other than the Reluctant Bush Responders. That theory was demolished by UScountvotes.org."

Which seems to say that the report was rubbish.

This leaves only three options:

1. The report is acurate

2. The report is rubbish

3. The parts that fit your spreadsheets are acurate and the parts that don't are rubbish.

Which is it?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I didn't ask you where you got them ........
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 11:51 AM by Aussie_expat
I asked you what the represent........

My question was very direct......

Do you think that it is important to understand what the numbers represent before you use them in support of your theories?

Otherwise you might as well factor in the points spread for the 2004 superbowl to come up with a MOE that would be nearly as relevant.

Here is the question again:

Which set are they:

1. The early election day exit poll figures?

2. The late election day exit poll figures?

3. The final exit poll figures released in Aug or Sept 2001.

If you don't know the answer then you prove my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. You just listed the CCN link ......
And the MSNBC link doesn't specify.

and you have not answered my direct questions.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. THE 1996 POLL RESULTS ARE EVEN MORE ACCURATE THAN SHOWN ABOVE
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 11:10 AM by TruthIsAll
The average percentages are even closer than stated above. I
incorrectly included the "Whites" category in the
total average. 

As whites are less than 100% of voters, the averages were off
slightly, so I removed that category from the list and
recalculated.

NOTE: THE AVERAGES FOR PEROT AND DOLE ARE WITHIN .01% OF THE
ACTUAL VOTE.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html			

Sample Size: 16359 /Updated 11/06/96 11:49 a.m.			
			
CATEG	     Clinton	Dole	Perot
Gender	      48.72%	40.88%	8.44%
Race	     48.76%	41.12%	8.34%
Age	     48.85%	40.53%	8.69%
Income	      48.89%	40.79%	7.45%
PartyId	      48.74%	40.77%	8.46%
1992Vote	48.75%	41.18%	8.16%
Ideology	48.99%	41.14%	8.27%
Education	49.02%	39.64%	9.41%
Religion	48.22%	39.76%	9.23%
w/oPerot 	47.77%	41.10%	7.45%
Decided 	48.63%	39.97%	8.58%
			
Average	      48.67%	40.69%	8.39%
Actual	      49.20%	40.70%	8.40%
Diff	      -0.53%	-0.01%	-0.01%

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. No reason to get huffy to our friend from down under, TIA,
I wondered the same thing, and I'm sure others wondered as well. I take it from your reply that the exit poll figures for 2000 and 1996 came from the results given only a few days after the election, so they are actually the weighted figures (weighted to fit the samples into the right population contour) but not the "re-calibrated" ones, i.e., the ones that are changed to fit the actual results published months after the election.

Mistwell, when I post on this site and mention the fact that the exit polls are quite reliable, certainly well within the margin of error, and that they have improved over the years, always posts a link to a site that quotes an article from the Center for American Progress. That article says that the early, completely raw data (unweighted) from the exit polls in past elections always over-represent Democratics. I can understand that I think since the votes of Democratics are so much more easily thrown out or destroyed, as Greg Palast has shown and as history has shown, particularly in the South.

Anyway, there's no question in my mind that this past election was a fraud and almost certainly due to the voting machines which can be used to create any result desired. They either can't be or aren't audited with hand counts to verify the vote and they are programmed by the most rabid far-right ideologues in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I do not appreciate circular arguments meant to obscure and provoke.
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 03:05 PM by TruthIsAll
The date on the CNN NEP site is 11/06/96. I assume it is correct.
The data matches the votes for all categories.
End of story.
Either prove to me that the data is not from 11/06 or give it up.

It's called an exit poll.
13,047 respondents.
Of varous demographics.
Designed as a random-sample.
One percent MOE.

That's it.
Don't buy the B.S.

I deal in facts and analysis of those facts.
If I'm wrong in my data or analysis, point it out.
But be specific.
Ask legitimate questions.
I will give legitimate answers.

I do not pretend to be infallible. But I never seek to waste a poster's time using nonsensical argument.

My patience has limits.

As one who has spent a lifetime finding real solutions for real problems, I find this phenomenon on the part of naysayers to skirt around an issue annoying, confrontational. It is very much in line with the 21st century Bushian crusade against rationalism and science. It's a major reason why America is in the sad condition that it is - and why we are in steep decline.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. That is exactly the point of my post......
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 03:49 PM by Aussie_expat

TIA is using data that was accumulated mid-way through voting on election day and then comparing it to two other sets of data that have been processed differently. I think that he knows this but continues the ruse because it supports his theories.

I agree with him on the fact that the exit-polls and the election suffered from fraud......

I will also stipulate that his math is correct .........but garbage in equals garbage out.

however.... IMHO the numbers that he is starting with are not equally weighted ..... and he claims day after day that here's the "PROOF" which is just plain wrong.

He hasn't answered my questions and I can only guess that he knows the answers. This is why the fraud issue can gain no traction.

TIA, why do you call me a naysayer just because I disagree with your spreadsheets?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. 13047 out of 13660 is midway through the national exit poll?
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 05:17 PM by TruthIsAll
I am using the CORRECT numbers - the 13,047 on the WP site.
Which ones are you using, the contaminated 13660?

So the last 613 respondents took Bush from 48-51% down to 51-48% up?
Tell me, how could that happen?

And you say the fraud issue can gain no traction?
The more you naysayers speak in tongues, the more traction the fraud issue gets.

YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS.

YOU HAVE NOT SAID A PEEP ABOUT USCOUNTVOTES.ORG TOTALLY DEBUNKING THE MITOFSKY "RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER".

YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THEIR 10 PHD'S.

YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT THE BOGUS 37/37/26 PARTY-ID SPLIT, WHEN WE ALL KNOW IT WAS 38/35/27..

YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT 43 STATES DEVIATING TO BUSH.
YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT 17 STATES DEVIATING TO BUSH BEYOND THE MARGIN OF ERROR.

I DID THE HARD WORK AND CRUNCHED THE NUMBERS.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

WHERE ARE YOUR SPREADSHEETS?
WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS?
I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE SOLITARY PIECE OF NUMERICAL OF EVIDENCE FROM YOU.
HAVE YOU EVER STARTED A SINGLE THREAD ON THE SUBJECT?

YOU AGREE THERE WAS FRAUD.
WHOOPEE.
YOU AGREE MY CALCULATION METHODS ARE CORRECT.
WHOOPEE.

BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE DATA I'M USING IS LEGITIMATE.
YET YOU FAIL TO SPECIFICALLY STATE WHERE IT IS DEFICIENT.
YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL DATA.
YET I JUST SHOWED YOU DATES AND TIMES.

EACH NAYSAYER HAS HIS PET PONY.
FOR SOME IT'S THE MOE.
FOR OTHERS IT'S THE "POOR RECORD" OF EXIT POLLS.
FOR STILL OTHERS IT'S THE "RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDERS".
FOR YOU IT'S THE NEP DATA SET.

DO YOU ALSO NOT BELIEVE THE STATE EXIT POLL DATA?
DO YOU ALSO NOT BELIEVE THE EXIT POLL MARGIN OF ERROR?

YOU REFER TO IT AS GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT.
BUT YOU CANNOT EVEN SPOT THE GARBAGE.
YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE GARBAGE.

YOU ARE CAUGHT IN A CIRCLE OF YOUR LOGIC.
ALL YOU CAN DO IS SPOUT THE SAME OLD TALKING POINTS WHICH WERE DISCREDITED FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS.

YOU HAVE NOT CITED A SINGLE STATISTIC FROM ANY OF MY SPREADSHEETS.
JARGON IS ALL WE CAN EXPECT FROM YOU.
JUST LIKE THE JARGON FROM ALL THOSE OTHER NAYSAYS WHO ARE LONG-GONE.
WELL, A FEW STILL LURK, WONDERING WHAT THE NEXT TALKING POINT WILL BE.
WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS?

YOU ARE TRULY THE LAST MAN STANDING, AWSIE.
LAST OF THE NAYSAYS.
YOUR TIME HAS COME AND GONE.
GIVE IT UP ALREADY.
YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT.

DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE MY ANALYSIS?
THAT'S BECAUSE NO ONE HAS YET SPELLED OUT A CONTRARY VERSION OF THE FACTS IN A SPREADSHEET.

THOSE WHO HAVE DONE IT, WHO ARE SERIOUS, INVARIABLY AGREE WITH MINE.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT MERE WORDS REFUTE MY ANALYSIS - OR THAT OF OTHER TRUE INVESTIGATORS AT DU, OR OF FREEMAN, BAIMAN, SIMON ET AL?
OR THE PHD'S AT USCOUNTVOTES.ORG WHO HAVE PUT THEIR REPUTATIONS ON THE LINE IN THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY?

AWSIE, SHOW US YOUR SPREADSHEET, ALREADY.
SO FAR, YOU HAVE SHOWN US NOTHING.
AND GUESS WHAT?
YOU WON'T.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE WORK.
WHY CAN'T YOU DO THE WORK?

AWSIE, DENIAL IS A TOUGH RIVER TO NAVIGATE.
YOU ARE ADRIFT IN YOUR OWN ILLUSIONS.

VERY FEW AT DU BELIEVE YOU.
WHY KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE?
WHY NOT ADMIT THE OBVIOUS?
THE VOTERS WERE SCAMMED.

YOU SPEND YOUR TIME DOWN UNDER DENIGRATING OUR HONEST EFFORTS TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD USING SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS.

IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO GIVE IT UP.
YOU CAN'T WIN THE ARGUMENT.

BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UP TO THE CHALLENGE OF TAKING THE TIME TO TRY TO DISPROVE MY ANALYSIS.
YOU KNOW THAT ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS WOULD BE FUTILE.

SO CONTINUE TO RESORT TO YOUR DEPLETING CADRE OF STRAWMEN - EVEN WHILE THEY'RE FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. OK I'll try to answer your last post ...
1st bucket:

"YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS.
YOU HAVE NOT SAID A PEEP ABOUT USCOUNTVOTES.ORG TOTALLY DEBUNKING THE MITOFSKY "RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER".
YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THEIR 10 PHD'S.
YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT THE BOGUS 37/37/26 PARTY-ID SPLIT, WHEN WE ALL KNOW IT WAS 38/35/27..
YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT 43 STATES DEVIATING TO BUSH.
YOU HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT 17 STATES DEVIATING TO BUSH BEYOND THE MARGIN OF ERROR"

Realting to the above, my conclusion is that there was likely fraud committed.

1. WHERE ARE YOUR SPREADSHEETS?
WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS?

Without consistant data spreadsheets and numbers are useless. This is my issue with your "proof".

2. DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE MY ANALYSIS?

I have already agreed that your numerical analysis seems to be correct. I believe that the data that you started with is suspect.


3. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT MERE WORDS REFUTE MY ANALYSIS - OR THAT OF OTHER TRUE INVESTIGATORS AT DU, OR OF FREEMAN, BAIMAN, SIMON ET AL?

Please show me were Freeman, Baiman, or Simon ET AL support your spreadsheets.

4. AND GUESS WHAT?

What?

5. WHY CAN'T YOU DO THE WORK?

I'm not a mathmatician.

6. WHY KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE?

Because the dead horse keep posting "Absolute 'PROOF'".

7. WHY NOT ADMIT THE OBVIOUS?

I feel that I am admitting the obvious. The scamming of the voter and your spreadsheets may or may not be related.

"YOU SPEND YOUR TIME DOWN UNDER DENIGRATING OUR HONEST EFFORTS TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD USING SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS."

How do you know I live down under?

I think your intentions are honorable however your statements that usually include the word "Irrefutable" and "Proof" are less than stated.

Please note that I am using small caps.

I believe that fraud was committed and MAY have been exposed in the exit polls however your speadsheets are far from conclusive simply because you are using different sets of data. And thats all I'm saying.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Well, thank you.
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 06:15 PM by TruthIsAll
You have responded fairly.
Sorry if I had to do my Dean scream.

You say:
"Without consistent data spreadsheets and numbers are useless. This is my issue with your "proof"."

Well, my numerical spreadsheets (and graphs) have been consistent - and I've done scores of them. Of course, as new data becomes available, or if I spot a data or calculation error, or if I want to present the data differently, or if I want to incorporate Freeman's data, I revise the sheet and post it again. But my essential analysis has been consistent from the beginning - and has withstood the tests of time.

First it was 16 states deviating beyond the MOE to Bush.
Now its 17.
Or it was 41 states deviating to Bush.
Now its 43.

Or the MOE was first calculated using the formula 1/sqrt(N).
I've tightened it up to MOE= 1.96 * sqrt<(1-p)*p)/N>.
This brings the MOE down a fraction (e.g. 3.16% to 3.10%)

So you can see that I have been as precise as i can. My probability calculations change as the data changes, as well. They are truly astronomical and range from the millions to the trillions, depending on what we are calculating. One simple input error (the probability for exceeding the Moe was 5.0% when it should have been 2.5%) caused a probability change from 1 in 4.5 billion (an error) to 1 in 13.5 trillion (the correct calculation).

When I use the word "proof", I am referring to circumstantial, mathematical proof. And of this there is no question: When the probabilities reach into the millions, that is circumstantial proof far beyond what is required in proving a civil case. So please don't get hung up with the word "proof".

And don't get hung up with an individual poll either. You must look at all the polls. Spot the trend. For forty-three out of 51 states deviating to Bush, the odds are 1 in 1.7 million, based on BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION. For seventeen States deviating beyond the margin of error, all to Bush, it's less than 1 in 200 trillion (depending on the standard deviation) based on the NORMAL distribution.

I believe I have said enough about the National Exit Polls, so I'll stop here.

BTW, I may have confused you with another DUer with a similar name and who pissed me off. That's the reason for the caps.

Cheers

tia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
21. One question TIA
You know I believe that the change in party ID weighting is the key to explaining the discrepancy between the 13,047 and the 13,660 (contaminated) results within a percent or so (and enough to swing the popular vote outcome) and I'm glad you decided to highlight this.

It's also worth noting that in the Wash. Post 13,047 article, it was never pointed out that Kerry was ahead in that version of the poll, although this can be inferred with certainty from the other data in the same report.

The question is: could the earlier poll results you cite here also have been contaminated, i.e., mixed with actual vote counts in 1996 and 2000? You are implying that the 2004 contamination is somehow unique and I'm not sure this is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Now we know why exit polls are "re-weighted": to match the bogus votes.
Edited on Wed Feb-23-05 02:46 AM by TruthIsAll
As Mitofsky has stated, exit polls have always been weighted to match the actual vote. Now we know the reasons why. His statement, though literally true, is a canard. In fact, the vote count should be re-weighted to match the exit polls.

Mitofsky would have us believe that the vote counts are correct and therefore preliminary exit poll numbers must be re-weighted to match the actual vote. That's why his final, weighted exit polls match the votes - but are wrong, because they assume that the vote counts are accurate, which is not true.

The re-weighted exit polls are "correct" only if one defines correct as exactly matching bogus vote counts.

Mitofsky never suggested that the vote counts could be anything but perfect. Yet we know that millions of ballots are spoiled in every election, especially in minority precincts. We learned about that from Greg Palast in Florida 2000.

We must assume that if the final exit polls are weighted to match bogus vote counts, then the preliminary exit polls (like the 2004 NEP of 13,047) must be very accurate indeed. In fact, Mitofsky/Edison claim that the preliminary 13,047 WP poll was accurate to within a 1% MOE.

Looking at the last five elections, the preliminary exit polls, which reflect the true intent of the voter, have been "re-weighted" to match bogus vote counts. And it's always the Democrats who lose the majority of the spoiled votes. As many as 4-5 million are estimated to be spoiled, of which probably more than 75% are Democratic votes.

Let's assume that of 4 million spoiled ballots, 3 million are Democratic, 1 million Repub. That's 2 million net votes lost to the Dems, or 2% of 100 million votes. In a close election, it makes all the difference.

But we have not even considered BBV, the 21st century equivalent of a punch card undervote/overvote - but without a paper trail to recount. We can therefore conclude that, in the last 5 elections, the preliminary Democratic exit polls exceeded the actual votes by 2-4% - and were very close to the true intent of the voter.

The NEP/WP site displays the pristine National exit poll of 13,047 respondents. The demographic category weights indicate a 51-48% Kerry victory, confirmed by state exit polls which showed Kerry winning most of the battleground states, including Ohio and Florida.

The 2004 preliminary (13,074 respondents) PartyID mix of 38/35/27 matched the final exit poll (39/35/27) in 1996-2000. The fact that this was changed to 37/37/26 in the final (13,660) NEP poll was what we used to call finagling the numbers - or cooking the books- match the bogus Bush 51-48% tally. THAT IS A MAJOR SMOKING GUN.

BUT SMOKING GUN #1 IS STILL THE 21 MILLION NEW VOTERS WHICH KERRY WON BY 59-39%. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL KERRY COULD HAVE LOST, SINCE HE STARTED WITH A MAJORITY BASE OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS TO BEGIN WITH.


The argument that the naysayers and even so-called Democratic polling bloggers have used, that the exit polls are not random samples and the votes counts are correct, is logically and factually bogus, by definition. On the contrary, we know that the votes do not include those lost to ballot spoilage (75%) or machine "glitches" (99% of which favored Bush.

We must therefore conclude that Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry all did better than the vote counts indicated, because millions of their votes were spoiled ballots - not to mention the unknown number stolen in cyberspace.

And finally, what about those who were disenfranchised by corrupt Secretaries of State, who never had the chance to vote and exit- polled?

So that's it.
The unexplained exit poll discrepancy - explained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NationalEnquirer Donating Member (571 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Exactly.. but more so because until now..
In this country exit polls were never used as a "check" on the elections.
They are used mostly for demographics studies.
Therefore, you'd want to "fix" the exit polls to reflect the "actual" vote.
Of course, we know better now.
I'm afraid the past is the past, don't think we will convince anyone but ourselvs with this stuff.
We need better elections, but lets NOT FORGET we need better exit polling, keeping that crook Mitofshit as far away from them as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sacxtra Donating Member (202 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
25. Who can't attack an electronic system?



go file an election fraud complaint locally in your own precint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. One thing I have noticed about TIA is you do address those who have legit
Problems with your work. YOu seem to want to address legit complaints by redoing your work, -you seems to try different things. YOu have taken many different angles and no matter how you look at it, TiA comes up with the same conclusion, Bush didnt win.

How many different ways do Peeps want TIA to try? ANother 10--or 20.

I think TIA has shown that no matter how you cut the pie, Bush Did not win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I suspect that Hichens has looked at TIA's stuff
He says something like 'any way you look at it...'

I'd just hate to see TIA's pencil sharpening bills!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. He never answers one basic question
All prior early exit polls were flawed in a manner which favored Democrats, often by more than they did this time, sometimes by more that 8% points off from the official vote tally. TIA *never* adequately addresses this point. He places as a basic assumption in ALL his analysis, which is a margin of error that he claims is accurate, despite knowing this fact about all prior exit polls demonstrates that it is NOT an accurate margin of error for what he is trying to measure.

The day TIA gives an explanation about all those other early exit polls that did exactly the same thing that this early exit poll did, which is something other than "well, the Republicans fixed ALL prior elections since the invention of exit polls", I'll believe he is honest in his analysis. Until then, all he does is repeat the same flawed claim a 100 different ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You obviously did not read my post, so let me repeat.
Edited on Wed Feb-23-05 07:42 PM by TruthIsAll
Do you agree that millions of mostly democratic votes are spoiled and not counted in every election?

If you agree, then isn't this the same as saying the vote count is incorrect, since it does not include all the voters who went to the polls?

If you agree, then why re-weight the results of the exit poll, which measures the intent of ALL the voters, to match the actual recorded vote-count, which does not? What is the logic in doing this?

Since Mitofsky weights the "raw" exit poll data to match the vote count (which is flawed to begin with), then is it possible that the "raw" exit polls are more accurate than the final "weighted" poll, since the initial poll sampled ALL voters, including those whose ballots were later found to have been spoiled?

Mistwell, we all look forward to your direct response to these questions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Ive stayed out of the fray with these threads-- no longer
Mistwell said:
He never answers one basic question
All prior early exit polls were flawed in a manner which favored Democrats,

Roj said:

Dude I saw that one and you didnt. TIA and others have gone over that issue Repeatedly.

I came out of my polling place in 1996 thinking I voted for Clinton.
I had just moved and had to vote provisional. WRONG !!! I found out later that the apt building I live in has an address in town A, but pays taxes in town B--its right on the border 'tween the 2 towns.
SO I then registered to vote in town B.

SO in 96 if I bumped into an exit poller I would have told him I voted for Clinton---but I didnt vote at all that year.

TIA maybe you should redo your work another 173 different ways. Maybe that will make some folks happy. Yeah U R right it wont make them happy.


How many voters were not instructed properly on the use of DRE's and didnt hit that red button? But came out to the exit poller and said they voted for Kerry.

Or voted on a DRE and didnt review---to see where it said Bush instead of Kerry?

Or folks that I met in FL that voted for Kerry and Betty Castor--but it kept coming up Martinez and BUSH.


Those folks that I met in FL I love then dearly, that 92 year old man--I pinned a vets for Kerry button on his shirt---he was in Normandy in 43. He said "Kerry's my man". I said "guess who do I work for?". he looked at me and said "KERRY?"

"Yeah", he looked at me with a crooked look and said

Are we going take this guy out? we cant take any more of him, ya know?

I said yeah, "we're going to take him out"

Well I owe that guy--he fought at Normandy--I freekin owe him big time.

Now its my turn---to fight for my country. I owe that old guy.

So does TIA, Fight on Dude


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Wow,...
So you believe all elections since 1988 were fixed by the Republicans, in a manner involving hundreds of different kinds of voting machines some of which had no electronics ever involved with them, some of which were otherwise school test counting machines, over decades, with hundreds of people secretly conspiring to defraud the vote, risking prison, all to no avail since every single time they failed to achieve a
change to the election results? And nobody ever talked? And THIS massive conspiracy theory seems more logical to you than the studies done by non-partisan schools that show that exit polls tend to poll Democrats more than Republicans, and all the exit poll experts saying that exit polls, as they are done in the US with the budget they have, are not accurate enough to test for fraud in the vote?

My cat went missing once. I assumed it escaped out the back door, which was accidentlly left open. In your household, would you have assumed instead that the most likely theory was space aliens kidnapping my cat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. HOw did you come to this conclusion?
Mistwell said:

Wow,...
So you believe all elections since 1988 were fixed by the Republicans


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. It's that, or exit polls are wrong
The early, unweighted exit polls dating back to their inception in 1988 all varied well beyond the margin of error relative to the actual vote count, always favoring Democrats, often more than they did for this last election (up to past 8% variation). So you have to believe one of two things, 1) unweighted exit polls fail to accurately predict the vote, or 2) all prior elections dating back to 1988 were fixed by the Republicans. I believe the prior is significantly more likely than the later possibility...as do the people who run the exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Mistwell, explain this correlation of deviations to "spoiled" votes.
  Initial Exit Poll	     Final Vote			Deviation	
	Dem	Rep		Dem	Rep		Dem	Rep
1988	50.3	49.7		46	54		-4.3	4.3
1992	46	33.2		43	38		-3	4.8
1996	52.2	37.5		49	41		-3.2	3.5
2000	48.5	46.2		48.4	47.9		-0.1	1.7
2004	50.74	47.93		48.28	50.73		-2.46	2.8
								
Average	49.55	42.91		46.94	46.33		-2.61	3.42

Est. "spoiled" votes	3.00%				
Avg Rep Dev.		3.42%					
Avg Dem Dev.		-2.61%						
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Easy - you made those number up out of thin air
You have no evidence, NONE, of how many and what party affiliation were associated with spoiled ballots in any of those years except 2000. You took a single article of a single election with massive speculation admitted in the article, and applied it to all elections. That's called making stuff up, TIA.

You want to prove me wrong? Show me. And not with your own analysis, but with a solid article on the subject showing that chart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Unweighted exit polls by their nature are wrong.
They are not representative of a state or national electorate because they are not random samples. They must be weighted to mean anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. But exit polls weighted to bogus vote counts are right?
Edited on Thu Feb-24-05 03:23 PM by TruthIsAll
Come on.
Exit polls are weighted to match the vote - not the electorate.

Initial Exit polls are pre-weighted by sample design.

1) Millions of ballots are spoiled.
Therefore,

2) Weighted adjustments to "raw" exit polls matched to a population which doed not include ALL who voted can never produce a correct result. And we are only considering natural mechanical spoilage, not the other kind.

Let me put it to you this way:
If you take 2 cards out of a deck, are you playing with a fair deck?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Can you tell me how ..........
Mitofsky does this :

"Initial Exit polls are pre-weighted by sample design."

How do you know that the initial weighting applied at the end of election day is not part of the "sample design".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Since when has the definition of demographic weighting changed to
that of matching to a vote count which does include the following critical characteristic: SPOILED VOTES?

Once again, you continue to avoid the real issue.
Can I simplify it for you with an example?

A mutual friend give us each a deck of cards.
He takes out 2 aces from my deck and leaves yours alone.

He then asks you to draw a card from either my deck or yours.
If you draw an ace, he will buy you dinner.

Whick deck would you choose?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Wow........
You said "demographic weighting".

A few weeks ago you insisted that there was no such thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #49
67. Thanks to minvis, at the Ohio Exit Poll Raw Data thread,...
here's what NEP (Mitofsky) says:

Sampling
The samples were selected in two stages. First, a probability sample of voting precincts within each state was selected that represents the different geographic areas across the state and the partisan make-up of the state. Precincts were selected with a probability proportionate to the number of voters in each precinct. There are two exceptions. In some states, precincts that have large minority populations were sampled at a higher rate than other precincts. In New Hampshire a few very large precincts were sampled with certainty. The sample weighting (described below) adjusts the representation of these precincts to their correct share of the total vote. Within each precinct, voters were sampled systematically throughout the voting day at a rate that gives all voters in a precinct the same chance of being interviewed.

Weighting
The exit poll results are weighted to reflect the complexity of the sampling design. That is, the weighting takes into account the different probabilities of selecting a precinct and of selecting a voter within each precinct. For example, minority precincts that were selected at a higher rate receive a smaller weight than other precincts of the same size. There is also an adjustment for voters who were missed or refused to be interviewed, which is based on their observed age, race and gender.

(The same wording can be found re. Voter News Service's 2002 poll methodology at www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/usvns2002_2.html )



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. Democrats may have had more spoiled ballots, but ............
If the actual vote and the initial exit polls dont match, the model used to produce the exit poll must be adjusted. TIA wants to use the model to adjust the vote.

The weighting model has been created in part from former voting results augmented by changing voter demographics. Why would one have more faith in the model than the vote? They are a part of the same process.

The use of exit polls to criticize the actual vote is disingenuous. Matching results dont preclude election fraud, nor do divergent results insist upon it.

Spoiled ballots are both in the vote results and in the model, so they wouldnt account for the discrepancy.

I believe the initial model was poorly done and needed further tweaking by the vote results. Mitofsky has a bias that needs to be addressed. He's in denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
82. Not True...
Spoiled votes are a moving target. They are impacted by technology changes, ballot changes, election procedures, degree of Democratic "diligence" on the ground (even CalTech/MIT mentions this last one), etc. They have a specific distribution that works heavily against Democrats (including an intentional racial disenfranchisement component) and a national magnitude which has been fairly stable (until 2004) but that does not create a consistent and uniform county-to-county or state-to-state or year-to-year distribution. The only way to compensate would be a national "fraud fudge factor". Even then, you would not pick up election to election changes and your state results would not jive.

As far as Mitofsky's initial model being "poor", that is the one thing that would have put him out of business years ago. Quite the opposite is largely accepted, even by "the election was stolen" types like me, the media organizations who abandoned their own polling efforts to subscribe to NEP, the "reluctant responder" theorists, the academics who bitch about his "black arts", and even by many right-wing pollsters.

The structure of the exit polls is dependent on fair elections. When the polls are "off", it is precisely the fairness of the election that is called into question. Because the polls are complex (state polls plus survey questions), they can be "off" on their simple result OR they can "not add up". In 2004, both were true.

There are many technical factors that could have caused those polls to miss and that hook was precisely the one that most of the "exit polls are wrong" advocates hung their hat on. Four months later, we have, at best, a WPE explanation that not even NEP believes and the hat is on the floor....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
64. Roger, what's your take on what happened in Broward, Dade, ...

and PB? I ask because I live in Broward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #64
75. They Cheated---LOL --in Broward as they did all over
Touchscreens not registering Kerry votes when Dem ticket is slected-- to "It says Bush -- but I picked Kerry"

To the best was at unemployment Offices getting folks to reg to vote.
And then calling them up to thank them for voting a straight Repub ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #75
81. I heard the horror stories...

What I was wondering about was turnout. How does a county (Broward) which has been one of the most motivated in the state, go to having one of the lower turnouts (as % of registration)? Did you guys hear about votes "disappearing"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. My answers
Do you agree that millions of mostly democratic votes are spoiled and not counted in every election?"

No. Not at all. I have no idea how many it is, and I have no idea how it varies from election to election.

"If you agree, then isn't this the same as saying the vote count is incorrect, since it does not include all the voters who went to the polls?"

The vote count IS incorrect to a certain degree, but that does not mean it is less correct than exit polls. It could be incorrect by an infintesimally small amount, or a large amount. I think we should try to find out how much it is off by, but I don't think existing exit polls are in any way capable of that. Indeed, since the polls themselves involve a questionaire that is no more or less difficult to fill out than the ballot itself on average, the exit poll itself will likely suffer from spoilage as well...and with such a significantly smaller number of people surveyed than in the actual vote, you're looking at increasingly inaccurate exit polling data if your theory about spoilage is correct.

"If you agree, then why re-weight the results of the exit poll, which measures the intent of ALL the voters, to match the actual recorded vote-count, which does not? What is the logic in doing this?"

The logic is that the actual vote, being a count of more people, is a lot more likely to be accurate than the small sample taken in an very underfunded exit poll that has scientifically been studied to survey Democrats more often than Republicans. Indeed, re-weighting has always been done because the inventor of the exit polls says he has to be done to even approach a level of accuracy...something which should alert you to the fact in a screaming, blatantly obvious manner that the exit poll itself is not nearly as reliable as you seem to think.

"Since Mitofsky weights the "raw" exit poll data to match the vote count (which is flawed to begin with), then is it possible that the "raw" exit polls are more accurate than the final "weighted" poll, since the initial poll sampled ALL voters, including those whose ballots were later found to have been spoiled?"

No, it is not, given that prior flaws in the actual vote from spoilage (which is what you said, above), would have no more or less of an impact on the actual vote as it would on the exit poll interview sheets, and therefore given the MASSIVE, OVERWHELMING difference in the number of people counted in an exit poll versus the actual vote, combined with the studies showing that Democrats are much more willing to speak with the exit pollsters, there is pretty much no question at all in my mind that, everything else being equal, exit polls are not nearly as accurate as the actual vote count.

Now, if there is widespread, material fraud, things change. However, you have to claim fraud in every election since 1988, all of which failed except for this year, to get to that point. And that position, my friend, is about as logical as claiming space aliens switched the votes as a sociological experiment.

"Mistwell, we all look forward to your direct response to these questions."

You got it, as always. I have always responded to you. You have always, ALWAYS run from the issue of all prior pre-final exit polls being inaccurate, except to espouse a massive decades long conspiracy theory involving thousands of people risking prison to fix a vote in an incredibly difficult manner involving hundreds of different types of non-electronic voting machines in a manner which never actually changed election results which you know full well makes no sense and turns everyone off to you and your current exit poll analysis so much that you dodge the issue now at every opportunity rather than repeat the outrageous claims you have made on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. I completely agree, let me add this for what it's worth
Exit polls dont measure the votes accuracy. They predict the results based on many factors. Exit polls are not purely random samples and must be weighted before they mean anything. If indeed the preliminary 2004 data were weighted, then that suggests a flawed model or inaccurate polling not a corrupted election. The accuracy of the polls is determined by the election results.

The pristine data means nothing because raw information from 250 precincts, out of all the possible voters from hundreds of thousands of precincts nationwide, is not representative of a national sample. Exit polls make useful information out of unrepresentative data through weighting. The exit polls neither demonstrate the accuracy of the election or of the raw data. It just shows the ability of the model to turn the raw data into a mirror of the election results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Mistwell, do your homework.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-05 01:14 AM by TruthIsAll
Do you agree that millions of mostly democratic votes are spoiled and not counted in every election?

"No. Not at all. I have no idea how many it is, and I have no idea how it varies from election to election".

WHY DON'T YOU START WITH THE 110,000 OVERVOTES AND 70,000 UNDERVOTES IN FLORIDA ALONE IN THE 2000 SELECTION, 75% OF WHICH WERE GORE VOTES?

MISTWELL, EITHER YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH OR YOU ARE FACTUALLY-CHALLENGED.

OR BOTH.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000227.html

From the link:
"Greg Palast says a lot of interesting stuff about this here. His main points are:

1. 3% of ballots cast in the US are generally found to be "spoiled" and discarded. A lower percentage (just under 2%) is expected to be discarded in this election, but that's still a lot: almost two million.

2. The discarded ballots mostly come from poorer areas, because they have the worst voting equipment. In 2000, Florida discarded 180,000 ballots, of which 54% were calculated to have been cast by black voters.

3. Ohio isn't saying how many ballots were discarded this year, but in 2000 it was 1.96% of the total. A similar percentage this year would mean the votes of 110,000 Ohioans weren't counted.

4. The 110,000 ballots added to the 175,000-250,000 provisional ballots in Ohio equals 285,000-360,000 uncounted votes. Since currently counted ballots in Ohio give Bush a lead of 136,483, Kerry would have to get 69-75% of the uncounted votes to have actually won. Given the circumstances, this is not at all unlikely.

5. The situation is similar in New Mexico, where the election has yet to be called.

And while Palast doesn't say this, if you add spoiled ballots to the thus far uncounted provisional and absentee ballots, you get perhaps 7.5-8 million votes. Bush is ahead by 3.5 million in the counted votes. So it's possible that if every vote counted, Kerry would have won both the popular and electoral vote".


END OF DISCUSSION.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Answers again
"Do you agree that millions of mostly democratic votes are spoiled and not counted in every election?

"No. Not at all. I have no idea how many it is, and I have no idea how it varies from election to election".

WHY DON'T YOU START WITH THE 110,000 OVERVOTES AND 70,000 UNDERVOTES IN FLORIDA ALONE IN THE 2000 SELECTION, 75% OF WHICH WERE GORE VOTES?

"MISTWELL, EITHER YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH OR YOU ARE FACTUALLY-CHALLENGED.

OR BOTH.

END OF DISCUSSION."

I'm not your enemy TIA. I'm just the guy willing to tell you the truth you claim is important to you.

TIA, you can count. I know you can count. You have shown it over and over again, and claim to have a degree and job that involves at least at some small level your ability to count. So you know that 110000 + 70000 in no way, shape or form = "millions of mostly democratic votes in every single election since 1988".

And the fact that you just made that argument in response to this subject will show a ton of your "followers" once again just how subjective your analysis has become.

There was a time, TIA, where you gave honest, useful analysis on this board. Somewhere in the mix, however, you seem to have lost your way. From my perspective, you've gone into conspiracy land, discarding anything that calls into question your theories, shifting your argument to maintain your thesis rather than critically asking yourself what led you to have a flawed claim to begin with, and outright running away when the mirror gets too bright to face.

For your own sake, I hope you some time soon return to the TIA we all used to know and love. The guy that knew that the Democratic party is the party of science. The party willing to look at the world in an objective way rather than through the lens of mysticism and myth.

Statistical analysis can still be useful in combating both fraud and the Republicans. It's just time to use that ability you have in an area outside the exit polls. You know in your heart that you've reached well beyond the end of the road with the exit polls. Your posts have fewer and fewer responses every day. Your "new" twists have become the same posts over and over again with fewer and fewer minor changes to them to pretend they are "fresh". Fewer people seem to care every day. I know you like the attention...but you just can't ride that same horse any longer.

It's time for something new. I suspect there is enough information out there already for you to come up with a new thesis that has nothing to do with the exit polls. It just takes effort...more effort than the exit poll stuff required. Seek that thing out TIA. We'll all benefit from it if you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
39.  Mistwell, you're breaking my heart. I'm misty-eyed. Not.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-05 02:41 AM by TruthIsAll
"For your own sake, I hope you some time soon return to the TIA we all used to know and love. The guy that knew that the Democratic party is the party of science. The party willing to look at the world in an objective way rather than through the lens of mysticism and myth."

Why don't you cut out the corn and just focus on the facts.

The fact is that 2-3% of the votes are spoiled in every election, and mostly in minority precincts.

For someone who claims to be a proponent of the scientific method, you sure have a funny way of avoiding the nuts and bolts of hard analysis.

In fact, you have made a career at DU of bashing my work, much of which is based on probability and statistical theory well known to anyone knowledgeable in mathematical analysis.

No one has succeeded in debunking the facts or calculations in any of my posts. Many have tried, including you. When will you realize that you will never succeed, and that with each additional post you just fall further into a deep vortex of denial and self-deception.

Now you have put on your nice guy hat, imploring, poor old TIA to come back to the fold. Well, I've never left the Truth Train. And since you never bought a ticket to the promised land of the Truth, the Train has left you far behind.

Mistwell, it's obvious that you have no substantive rebuttal to these facts, so you resort to personality-stroking.

I refuse to be stroked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Answer it then
TIA, it's time to REALLY answer the question then. Why do ALL prior early exit poll results favor Democrats relative to the actual vote, sometime by as much as 8% more than the actual vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #42
63. anaxarchos and I told you why. And the deviations average 3-4%
Edited on Fri Feb-25-05 06:22 PM by TruthIsAll
Why don't you put the numbers into a spread sheet and see for yourself, like I did, from 19878 to 2004?

Kerry, Bush
Preliminary exit polls
Actuals
Deviations
Averages
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #63
85. No, answer the question already - why run?
Why do you always dodge this question?

I'll ask it again. Please answer it:

Why do ALL prior early exit poll results favor Democrats relative to the actual vote, sometime by as much as 8% more than the actual vote?

Is it 1) All prior elections since 1988 were secretly fixed by Republicans at great risk and no gain (except for this year where there was gain); or 2) early exit polls are wrong.

Pick an answer already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
53. Here's an idea for all you folks, if you want to take a moment out....
from your bracing exchanges on the general merits of exit poll data. The folks at "Ohio Exit Poll Raw Data" are undertaking the Herculean tasks of trying to identify individual precincts in Ohio exit poll data (from Univ. of Mich.) and trying to ferret out Ohio precinct election totals from various online sources.

My question to you all - which you are welcome to address here or on the Ohio exit poll site itself - is IS THERE ANY WAY THAT COMPARING INDIVIDUAL PRECINCT EXIT POLL DATA WITH CORRESPONDING PRECINCT "ACTUAL" TOTALS COULD HELP IDENTIFY PRECINCTS WHERE FRAUDULENT COUNTS/TABULATIONS WERE LIKELY TO HAVE OCCURRED?

Sorry, about this interruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie_expat Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Hi Kiwi...

That is a great Idea .........

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Are precinct exit totals reliable enough?
Hi Aussie

I'm not sure if precinct exit totals are weighted properly or not. I understand that each precinct that is used has maybe 30 interviews. From the exit poll discussions, I gather that the interviewers are given certain demographic quotas (like 5 white men aged 21-30). What I don't know is if those quotas are intended to reflect the composition of that particular precinct or are merely useful for the pollster's overall targets.

Should we take this discussion elsewhere? I think you are now eligible to start your own thread. I saw a front-page poster who had 83 or fewer posts.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. This is getting silly...
Let's take it point by point. Point #1 -

"Do you agree that millions of mostly democratic votes are spoiled and not counted in every election?"

No. Not at all. I have no idea how many it is, and I have no idea how it varies from election to election."

OK, try this (a Harvard University study from 2002)

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/elec...

<Begin Quote>

Spoilage Rates Vary Greatly From State To State And County To County. In the 2000 election, almost 2 million votes went uncounted - about 2 percent of all ballots cast - and the percent of uncounted ballots ranged from less than 1% to over 4% depending on the state. Fifteen states had residual ballot rates above the national rate of 1.9%. And even states with moderate or low overall spoilage rates contained counties with high rates of uncounted ballots; in some counties, over 12% of the ballots cast went up in smoke.

Spoilage Rates Are Most Prevalent In Counties With High Concentrations Of Minority Voters. Of the 100 counties with the highest spoilage rates, 67 have black populations above 12%. Of the top 100 counties with the lowest spoilage rates, the reverse is true only 10 had sizable black populations, while the population of 70 of the counties was over 75% white. There is also a strong correlation between uncounted ballots and black population; specifically, as the black population in a county increases, the uncounted ballot rate correspondingly increases.

<End Quote>

There is an overwhelming correlation between black voters, low-income voters, Hispanic voters - THEREFORE, Democratic voters (by as much as 7 or 8 to one) - and ballot spoilage. It is true in all elections.

Do you accept that or do you want to cite a single reliable source refuting this? ...I am not aware of any.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Assume that is all true
Let's assume all of that is true.

So, we have the following data:

1) Data applicable to the year 2000. This in no way impacts years like 1988, which is also included in this discussion with TIA.

2) Almost 2 million votes that went uncounted for President. Some percentage of that HAD no votes for President, or had no valid votes (such as people who asked for a new ballot after they messed up the first one, or people who tried to double vote, or people who were never registered to vote). I don't know what that percentage is of course, but it's not insignificant I suspect.

3) The undercount was spread over the entire country. Though the study looks at top 100 precincts, the top 100 is in no way represented as being so overwhelmingly significant to the entire undercount as a whole to give us a good picture of the final percentages.

4) Even if the top 100 did represent the entire undercount, which is an obvious hasty generalization, even then you have at least 30% without a large minority population, and of the remaining 70% we only know that at least 12% of the population was minorities. Add into that the fact that SOME minorities do not vote Democratic, and applying the math, we are already that it is well below "millions" of Democratic voters proven by this study to have been undercounted.

I really love how you say it's "true in all elections" given that we have no evidence whatsoever that it is any such thing, particularly given what happened in Florida for 2000 which did NOT happen every year as far as we know. I see you too do not value objective analysis of this, and will exagerate anything that benefits your theory while ignoring anything that might tend to disprove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. I am amazed at your speed reading skills.
You managed to read, digest and refute an important study in a few minutes.

You might have missed a few points such as the rate of spoilage increasing from 2% to 15% as the percentage population that is black increases from 2 to 65%.

Or that the study finds this to be a national trend (the 100 counties being merely illustrative) supported by a statistically significant correlation:

"Although the purpose of this report is to highlight disparities across counties and states and not to demonstrate causality, simple bivariate OLS regression analysis is suggestive. Spoilage rates are correlated with the percentage of the county population that is African-American."

But enough of "facts". Yes, I do assert that ballot spoilage is VERY significant ("millions"), it disproportionately (and overwhelmingly) favors Republicans, and it is true in EVERY election dating back to well before 1988. That is my assertion. Do you dispute that?

The point is important because you seem to meander a lot and if you are done insulting me, I intend to go on to the next point. If you dispute the above, cite your evidence or make your case. I am prepared to do the same.

What "seems" to you to be "true" is precisely what is in dispute here and, therefore, does not constitute an argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. answer
Despite the obvious flaws in your above claims (such as, if you work it out, the way you are currently thinking of it, you have drastically increased the total african american population of the US well above what it actually is), there is one simple fact that even a 1 minute response can deal with - you have NOTHING pertaining to "all" elections. Nothing at all you have cited pertains to years like 1988.

So yes, I am disputing it, and I am asking you to show us the evidence beyond your personal assertion. If you cannot, what the heck are you doing in the middle of a discussion involving all elections since 1988?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #41
57. He who argues only with himself...
...need never worry about losing to anyone else.

I have no idea what you are talking about above but I guess I am grateful that you took more than 15 minutes, this time, to answer. You are still stuck on that insult thing though...

Since you simultaneously plead ignorance and challenge me (in a smug way, I might add), let me back up my assertion.

It is extremely well known that significant ballot spoilage has occurred in every recent election. That is one of the statistics at the heart of election performance and you can find it anywhere (just google). If you are lazy, here is just one citation from the Caltech-MIT voting project describing residual vote rates (residual vote = spoiled ballots, or close enough for our purpose here) from 1988 to 2000.

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~voting/CalTech_MIT_Report_V...

Table 3

Residual Vote as a Percent of Total Ballots Cast By Machine Type and Year
US Counties, 1988-2000 Presidential Elections

1988 2.5% 1992 2.0% 1996 2.1% 2000 2.0%


Elsewhere on that site you can find spoilage rates for elections going back to 1976. They are largely consistent with some variation from election to election and year to year (perhaps .5%).

That establishes that spoilage exists (and HAS existed) but not how it is distributed. On this subject, there is considerable analysis which dates from before 2000. There is, for example, this:

Stephen Knack and Martha Kropf, Invalidated Ballots in the 1996 Presidential Election: A County-Level Analysis (May 2001).

Available here:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jopo/2003/000...

"Evidence indicates that voided ballots are significantly more prevalent in counties with higher percentages of African Americans and Hispanics..."

But the above seems tame compared to the analysis after 2000. For that we owe the great Florida election theft of that year. In response to complaints that African Americans in Florida were victimized by ballot spoilage, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) decided to investigate. Lo and behold:

http://chris-bowers.mydd.com/story/2004/6/22/155425/153

"Harvard law professor Christopher Edley Jr., a member of the Commission on Civil Rights, didn't like the smell of all those spoiled ballots. He dug into the pile of tossed ballots and, deep in the commission's official findings, reported this: 14.4 percent of black votes--one in seven--were "invalidated," i.e., never counted. By contrast, only 1.6 percent of nonblack voters' ballots were spoiled."

Edley, BTW, is now the Dean of the Berkley Law School.

The USCCR study, in turn, opened up the floodgates of analysis and expanded that analysis to cover the entire nation. The research that followed is striking. There is for example, this:

Special Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform. Income and Racial Disparities in the Undercount in the 2000 Presidential Election. U.S. House of Representatives (July 2001)

Available here:

http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard/undercountreport.pdf

Some highlights:

This report analyzes voting results from 40 congressional districts in 20 states. Twenty of the congressional districts examined in this report have high poverty rates and a high minority population, and 20 of the districts have low poverty rates and a small minority population. The report analyzes the percentage of uncounted votes for president in each of the 40 districts and compares the percentages of uncounted votes in the two types of districts.

On average, voters in low-income, high-minority districts were over three times as likely to have their votes for president discarded as voters in affluent, low-minority districts. Voters in some low-income, high-minority districts were 20 times as likely to have their votes discarded as voters in other congressional districts.

Almost 3.5 million ballots were cast in the 20 districts with high poverty rates and a high minority population in the 2000 election. Almost 140,000 of these ballots were not counted in the presidential race. This is an undercount rate of 4.0%... There were significantly more ballots cast in the 20 affluent districts with a low minority population, but the number of ballots that were not counted was much smaller. A total of over 5.7 million ballots were cast in these affluent districts, and 67,000 ballots were not counted in the presidential race. This is an undercount rate of 1.2%.

Overall, voters in low-income, high-minority districts were over three times more likely to have their vote for president discarded than voters in affluent districts with a small minority population.

Voters in some low-income, high-minority districts were twenty times more likely to have their votes discarded than voters in other districts.

The ten congressional districts with the highest rates of uncounted ballots were all districts with high poverty rates and a high minority population.

One of the most interesting papers produced in this period is this one:

Klinker, Philip. Whose Votes Dont Count?: An Analysis of Spoiled Ballots in the 2000 Florida Election, Appendix XI in the USCCR Report (25 June 2001).

That is available here:

http://www.hamilton.edu/news/florida/Klinkner%20Analysi...

Some highlights from this:

Interestingly, education and income appear to have no effect on the rate of spoiled ballots. Thus there is little evidence in the data for the claim that spoiled ballots in Florida resulted mostly from the individual errors of voters who lacked the education or experience to cast accurate votes.

As the regressions for the stupid voter model indicates, these individually controlled variables exert little explanatory power. The adjusted r2 is only .452, meaning that the model explains less than half the variance in the pattern of spoiled ballots across Florida counties. Furthermore, none of the variables, save for literacy is statistically significant. This model and the previous one show quite clear that the pattern of spoiled ballots in Florida was much more influenced by systemic factors rather than individual ones.

In conclusion, this analysis offers two important findings:

1. There is no evidence that higher rates of spoiled ballots resulted from such individual factors as education and literacy. Instead, the factors influencing spoiled ballots were systemic. Thus, rather than speaking of individuals who spoiled their ballots, we should speak of individuals who were placed in situations in which it was more likely that their ballots would be spoiled. Furthermore, this finding indicates that any effort to reduce the rate of spoiled ballots must focus on systemic solutions--improved technology, more and better election workers, and stronger efforts to investigate and prosecute any instances of corruption and/or racial disenfranchisement.

2. Even after controlling for other factors, rates of ballot spoilage remain higher in predominantly black areas than in other areas of Florida. As the last model indicates, with all else being equal, for every 1-point increase in the percentage of registered voters who are black, there was a .07 percentage point increase in spoiled ballots. In addition, these rates were even higher where substantial numbers of blacks were found in counties with large margins for George W. Bush. All of this corresponds to and further reinforces the findings of the USCCR that there is evidence of racial disenfranchisement in the 2000 election in Florida. Consequently, it is important that federal authorities should investigate this matter more thoroughly.

Also, in the Addendum to this study, you will find a debate with Professor John Lott of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Lott claims a primary correlation to poverty rather than race and traces this back through the 1996 elections and before. Just follow the references.

But the above isnt really necessary is it? You will see a lot of references in the sources above to a systemic problem or systemic bias. In other places, you will find spoilage correlating to race or other factors. That is not a single election issue is it? That would make it an anomaly. A systemic bias is systemic", if it applies to all elections, or exactly what I said and also what I quoted you from the Harvard study.

In retrospect, your assertion that I had not shown any evidence for any other election is just silly. So is your reference to some non-votes being intentional. That is a canard, like voters not registering because they have lost interest in politics. In reality, both percentages are relatively small.

There is much, MUCH more. If you dont like academics, here are some serious newspaper examinations that supplement the above:

A Modern Democracy that Cant Count Votes; Special Report: What Happened in
Florida is the Rule and Not the Exception. A Coast-to-Coast Study by the Times Finds Shoddy System that Can Only be Trusted When the Election Isnt Close, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 11, 2000).

A Racial Gap in Voided Votes; Precinct Analysis Finds Stark Inequity in Polling
Problems, Washington Post (Dec. 27, 2000).

Many Votes Uncounted in Ohios Poor Areas, Columbus Dispatch (Dec. 17, 2000).

You might ask, Why black voters in particular? Are Republicans such racists?. Well, they are but the reason is much more practical as well. African American voters constitute the single most concentrated block in the U.S. electoral scheme, voting 85 to 90% Democratic in most U.S. elections. They are often also a marker for poor Hispanic and poor white voting populations, particularly in certain urban areas. These populations tend to be 2 to1 Democratic and 60/40 conservatively. Very little impact in this grouping has huge impacts on the outcomes of close elections.
That, in turn, gets us to the numbers:

http://chris-bowers.mydd.com/story/2004/6/22/155425/153

Florida's racial profile mirrors the nation's--both in the percentage of voters who are black and the racial profile of the voters whose ballots don't count. "In 2000, a black voter in Florida was ten times as likely to have their vote spoiled--not counted--as a white voter," explains political scientist Philip Klinkner, co-author of Edley's Harvard report. "National figures indicate that Florida is, surprisingly, typical. Given the proportion of nonwhite to white voters in America, then, it appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the USA, as many as 1 million votes, were cast by nonwhite voters."

So, lets see 1 million spoiled non-white votes, conservatively 80% Democratic plus 1 million white votes, 50% Democratic, gets us to 1.3 million votes in 2000 (it might be as high as 1.5 million). That was the threshold, going INTO the 2002 and 2004 races.
The interesting thing is that this is all generally accepted. Despite your pleas of ignorance, much of this analysis (standing on its ear, of course) has been used to justify BBV on the premise that BBV changes the rate (but not the distribution) of spoilage. Even the crap-media, like USA Today, anticipated the impact of widespread e-voting on spoilage prior to this election:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/p...

Cutting voting errors in half would add about 1 million votes that would have been uncounted in previous elections. That could help Democrat John Kerry because mistakes historically have been highest in Democratic precincts, especially those with many minorities.
Of course, that didnt really happen, did it? The soap just moved. Well get to that soon enough.

Now we are simply back to my assertion:

Yes, I do assert that ballot spoilage is VERY significant ("millions"), it disproportionately (and overwhelmingly) favors Republicans, and it is true in EVERY election dating back to well before 1988. That is my assertion. Do you dispute that?

That bald assertion now has some hair, or at least some support from, by my count, the USCCR, The House of Representatives, some leading newspapers, a boatload of professors from some of the stuffiest joints in town and some logic. And, I havent found much that claims to refute this not even at HannityCroaks.com, etc.

But it occurs to me that I have been very rude. I have hogged all the heavy lifting while you have merely been thinking
So now, its your turn.

Point #1, Master Mistwell. Which is it? Accept or refute.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Anaxarchos, thanks much for your outstanding research and presentation...
Edited on Fri Feb-25-05 01:55 AM by TruthIsAll
I really appreciate your masterful contribution whenever I get tag-teamed by the likes of those Ex-patriots and Mist...well, you know who I'm referring to.

You are truly the best of DU, IMHO.

P.S.
I truly admire your patience in dealing with the naysays.
I finally came to realize that normal give and take discussion is futile with them; we must call them out and put them on the stand, and force them to respond to direct questions.

They crumble every time, for they are incapable of anything more that familiar dittohead regurgitations of worn-out talking points.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Thanks, TIA...

You already know that I return the complement, with interest. There are some very serious people on this board and I often see good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. I am obviously one of the two "Ex-patriots" you refer to.

I am surprised that you would accuse me of "dittohead regurgitations of worn-out talking points". I thought we had left our discussions on quite amicable notes, with your commenting, on two occasions (ULTIMATE PROOF KERRY WON thread), that we had both learned from our discussion. I have always tried to refrain from name calling or personal abuse.

Please note I am changing my name. I think it is only fair to Aussie_expat not to have to be lumped with me.

"Kiwi_expat" was a mis-nom de screen, anyway. Unlike Aussie_expat, who appears to be a Australasian American, I am an American Australasian.

Cheers,
chimps-R-us

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I was just getting used to the Anzacs... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. I can't change my name.
I have been told "We don't allow people to change their names. We had an amnesty where we allowed anyone to change their usernames after the election, but that's the only time in DU's 4 year history we've done that."

So I am stuck with "kiwi_expat". Folks, please don't lump Aussie_expat and me together. We might agree on some things but it is not an Australasian conspiracy. I will try to keep my contributions to TIA's threads to a minimum.

However, I would like to discuss WHETHER COMPARING INDIVIDUAL PRECINCT EXIT POLL DATA WITH CORRESPONDING PRECINCT "ACTUAL" TOTALS COULD HELP IDENTIFY PRECINCTS WHERE FRAUDULENT COUNTS/TABULATIONS WERE LIKELY TO HAVE OCCURRED with the sort of people who contribute to TIA's threads. I'm not sure what to do.

Any suggestion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Please do your homework before you post ....
Could ya please gives some facts or links next time, heh. (j/k)

Damn fine post anaxarchos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. Thanks, Chi...
I read the title to your post but got called away before I could read the body.

I walked away muttering to myself, "Man, these Internets are brutal...". ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #57
68. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Mistwell, you wiggle like an eel...

If you had read anything I had written or followed a single link, you would specifically have seen that there was NO correlation to literacy. You keep thinkin', suspectin', and presumin' but you don't do any reading.

You asked me to support my assertion. I did just that. You don't get to change the subject again. Now support yours. With facts, not "thoughts".

Accept or refute...

(BTW, "constant whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining about rudeness"? NOT! I was being mean to you, Mistwell).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. BS
Edited on Sun Feb-27-05 01:36 AM by Mistwell
I read all your links, and you are wrong. They do NOT eliminate literacy as a possibility. Are you seriously claiming that poor black urban neighborhoods do NOT have a problem with literacy?

I'll ask the question one more time....the same question I've been asking from the beginning which you keep dodging. Do you believe it is a massive conspiracy dating back decades, or do you think it's something else. If it is something else, WHAT something else. Take your stand already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Nothing would make me happier than to answer your "conspiracy" question.
I suspect that you believe it will expose me as a tin-foil pinhead. Maybe it will. But, first things first...

First, you are wrong again. Klinker (as quoted by me above) has as the first point of his conclusion this: "There is no evidence that higher rates of spoiled ballots resulted from such individual factors as education and literacy. Instead, the factors influencing spoiled ballots were systemic." Klinker specifically showed that Richard Posner, the leading light of the "it must have been literacy school", used inaccurate data to come to his conclusion. And who is Klinker? Philip Klinker was later asked to co-direct the Harvard study and is today considered to be one of the leading experts on the subject.

And this quote, "Are you seriously claiming that poor black urban neighborhoods do NOT have a problem with literacy?" is just more sophistry.

Second, you and I have an existing challenge on the table. Here it is:

Mistwell: "So yes, I am disputing it, and I am asking you to show us the evidence beyond your personal assertion. If you cannot, what the heck are you doing in the middle of a discussion involving all elections since 1988? "

So I kill an entire forest of virtual trees to answer your question and you just go on to the next question without even conceding to me the right to sit at your table, Mistwell? Have we now settled your first "only" question you "have been asking all along"? Have you now seen evidence beyond my "personal assertion"? If not, what difference would it make if I chat with you anymore?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Answers
Klinker analyzed the 2000 election only...and that election just happens to be the one that came closest to matching the NEP early exit poll. All you proved with Klinker is that illiteracy didn't impact the one race where the exit polls did best...which I think is the opposite of what you are trying to claim. If you want to show that the spoilage rate in 1988 was not linked to literacy rates and bad equipment in poor urban regions, you will have to do a lot better than that.

I never claimed you do not have the right to sit at the same table with me and discuss this issue...you want to exagerate, you go right ahead.

So, is it a massive conspiracy reaching back decades, or not? What is your theory about the spoilage?

At some point you're going to have to answer that question. All you've done so far is mental masterbation in an attempt to avoid the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Come on, Mistwell...
Not even you believe that. A consistent spoilage rate with a consistent bias that is not related to literacy in 2000 but IS related before and after? Gimme a break.

I notice also, that you have resurrected your position on the exit polls - you are now speaking "with authority" (and a nasty attitude, if you don't mind me saying) on a subject you didn't even concede existed 1 week ago. Your objection is political, not scientific or logical.

You are right about one thing though... This has become "mental masturbation".

You can have the last word...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. SAME question
So, is it a massive conspiracy reaching back decades, or not? What is your theory about the spoilage?

At some point you're going to have to answer that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-05 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #78
93.  I started to answer your question Mistwell...

...on your thread to boot. But you were nowhere to be found... You must have lost interest after having asked the question "25 times".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. Poor black urban----WTF how do you spell BUSH ? KERRY ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. "disparity in ballot spoilage rates..is not the result of education or"
Does this study eliminate literacy rate as a major factor?
(or how bout the one that backed it up, by Gov. Bush)

"Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage ratesi.e., ballots cast but not countedbetween black and nonblack voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bushs Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters account for less than 1 percent of the problems."

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. That's about Florida, in 2000...not two decades of elections!
You cannot use the single example of Florida in 2000 and assume that what happened then applies to all elections in all counties in all states in all elections since 1988. Rarely have I see such a pure example of a hasty generalization as that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. OK, let me ask this then...
"You cannot use the single example of Florida in 2000 and assume that what happened then applies to all elections in all counties in all states in all elections since 1988."

Can I use 2004 Ukrainian exit polls and assume that their accuracy, then applies to all exit polls in all elections in all countries?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. You would be surprised
No, you cannot. However, if you did, you would find out what I found out - that even the second Ukranian election, which was the most watched election in history by international observers, did not have accurate exit polls. In fact, there is NO WAY to view the exit polls in Ukraine for the second election as anywhere near accurate...as there were three different exit polls, and all three were not only wrong when compared to the actual vote, by wrong (by more than the margin of error), when COMPARED TO EACH OTHER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #84
92. Since you have been making that point...
I'll assume you have other resources involving other foreign exit polls.
I'm sure your not drawing conclusions on just the Ukrainian polls, that would be wrong, as you just said.

I'll be glad to take a look, just post your info or your links.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
87. I think that I replied to that question in December
The spoilage of votes is neither a necessary or sufficient cause for the red shift. If 2% of the ballots cast are spoiled with 25% to bush that is only an increase of 1 million votes to Kerry if 100 million were cast. You would have to have spoilage on the order of 8 to 10% to explain why Kerry did not win the popular vote. Spoilage is necessary and possibly a sufficient explanation only at the level of electoral votes (e.g. state. I'm surprised that a mathematician would miss this, but then it is only the scientist that wrestles with the effects of allometry.

I think I also satisfactorily explained then why you would reweigh if you are addressing systematic sample design bias.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
36. TIA, your post #22 is definitive.

It is the logical point to ask the next set of questions. It's worth restating if this thread flies off into the ozone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. yup #22 is rock in roll

TIA said;
WHY DON'T YOU START WITH THE 110,000 OVERVOTES AND 70,000 UNDERVOTES IN FLORIDA ALONE IN THE 2000 SELECTION, 75% OF WHICH WERE GORE VOTES?



Then Mistwell said;
So you know that 110000 + 70000 in no way, shape or form = "millions of mostly democratic votes in every single election since 1988".


AAAAAhhhhhhhh dude----- TIA was talking about FLorida


in 2000.

1 in 50 states.

mistwell-
Thats no way to make your case in a logical & Rational manner.
I cant imagine how you got from FLorida in 2000 to the whole country since 1988.
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 Mon May 20th 2019, 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform 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