BYE, BYE rBr: IMPLAUSIBLE VOTER TURNOUT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

[TruthIsAll]

Election 2004 Turnout and National Exit Poll Sensitivity Model

This model calculates Kerry/Bush vote scenarios based on the
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE 2000 voter turnout in 2004. It also analyzes
the effects of INCREMENTAL PERCENTAGE DEVIATIONS from the
National Exit Poll of 13047 respondents. The results were
WEIGHTED AND POSTED on the NEP/WP web site at 12:22am (Kerry
won 51-48%), after the election. 
 
It was a full 12 hours later (1:25pm), after the demographic
weights and vote percentages were changed to match the
recorded vote (Bush won 51-48%) and the final 660 respondents
were added to the total, that the official National Exit Poll
results (13660 respondents) were posted on CNN.

The sensitivity analysis clearly indicates that the Bush
victory was extremely implausible, even assuming MAXIMUM Bush
2000 voter turnout.

By applying actual 2000 votes/2004 votes as weights in the
Voted 2000 category, the Reluctant Bush Responder hypothesis
is effectively eliminated as a possible cause of exit poll
discrepancies from the recorded vote.

We have already shown that the published Final Exit Poll of
13660 respondents, which has Bush winning by 51-48%, is in
error. The reason is simple: the weightings are absolutely
impossible. 

There is no way that 43% of the 122.26 million who voted in
2004 could have been Bush 2000 voters since the Bush 2000 vote
was 50.456 million and 50.456/122.26  = 41.27%. Furthermore,
approximately 1.77 mm of these Bush 2000 voters have passed
on, assuming the annual U.S. death rate of 0.87%. Therefore,
the maximum percentage of Bush 2000 voters who could have
voted in 2004 is 48.69/122.26 (39.82%). 

The corresponding Gore percentage of 37% must therfore be
incorrect as well. The same calculation applied using the Gore
2000 vote of 50.999 million gives a maximum of 49.21 million
(40.25%). For Nader, the maximum is 3.206 million (2.62%).

The following is clear: The recorded 2004 vote is the sum of
returning Bush, Gore and Nader voters plus new voters (those
who did not vote in 2000):

            V = BV +KV + NV + New

This is a very powerful equation, due to its simplicity and
application. Unlike questions of exit poll accuracy, margin of
error, reluctant Bush responders, etc., there can be no
argument about this formula. It’s the equivalent of the
accounting identity: 

          Assets = Liabilities + Equity.

Since we already know the total vote V (122.26 million) and
the maximum number of Bush, Gore and Nader 2000 voters, we can
proceed to calulate the MINIMUM number of New voters (those
who never voted as well as those who did not vote in 2000 but
voted prior to that).
 
         V =  122.26  =  48.69 + 49.21 + 3.21 + New

and  

         New = 122.26 - 48.69 – 49.21 - 3.21 = 21.15 million. 

This is the MINIMUM number of New 2004 voters, as it assumes 
100% voter turnout for Bush, Kerry and Nader. The number of
New voters must have been greater than 21.15 million.

Given this information, we can “stress test” the results of
the National Exit Poll of 13047 respondents to determine how
Bush could win by 3 million votes.

The base case for the analysis assumes 100% turnout of Bush,
Gore and Nader voters.

*****************************************************

National Exit Poll: 
13047 respondents @ 12:22am						

Using the actual weightings and the exit poll percentages,
Kerry wins by 5.91 million votes (51.94%-47.10%).				

Gore turnout: 100.0%
Bush turnout: 100.0%	

Total	Voted 2000	
              Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader	
21.150	No	17.30%	57.00%	41.00%	2.00%	

Consisting of:					
13.448  New	11.00%	56.00%	43.00%	1.00%	
7.702	Old	6.30%	58.75%	37.51%	3.75%	
						
49.214	Gore	40.25%	91.00%	8.00%	1.00%	
48.690	Bush	39.82%	9.00%	91.00%	0.00%	
3.206	Nader	2.62%	71.00%	21.00%	8.00%	
						
122.26	Total	100.0%	51.94%	47.10%	0.96%	
		122.26	63.50	57.59	1.17	

*****************************************************

The following sensitivity matrix gives the Kerry margin for
alternative Gore Voter turnout scenarios (assuming 100% Bush
2000 voter turnout) and deviations from the base case exit
poll voting percentages. Following the table are examples of a
few of the scenario calculations.

					
	Kerry Margin Sensitivity to Gore Voter Turnout
	and Deviations from Exit Poll Percentages
      (assume 100% Bush 2000 voter turnout)

New 	Gore	Kerry Percentage Vote Deviation from Exit Poll 	    
    Turnout   0%   -1%	-2%	-3%
					
21.151	100%	5.91	3.46	1.02	-1.43
22.134	98%	5.25	2.8	0.36	-2.09
23.119	96%	4.59	2.14	-0.30	-2.75
24.103	94%	3.93	1.49	-0.96	-3.41
25.087	92%	3.27	0.83	-1.62	
26.072	90%	2.61	0.17	-2.28	
27.056	88%	1.95	-0.49	-2.94	
28.040	86%	1.29	-1.15		
29.024	84%	0.63	-1.81		
30.009	82%	-0.03	-2.47		
30.993	80%	-0.69	-3.13		
33.946	73%	-2.99			

Looking at the table, the following is clear: For Bush to
realize a 3 million vote margin, one of the following had to
occur:

1) Assuming no change to the base case percentages, there
would have had to have been a 73% turnout of Gore 2000 voters
and a 100% Bush turnout. This is clearly impossible.

2) Assuming a 1% decline from the exit poll result in each of
the Kerry subgroups, an impossible 80% Gore turnout was
necessary for a Bush 3.13 million vote margin.

3) Assuming a 2% decline, the Gore turnout must have been 88%.
Again impossible.

4) Assuming a 3% decline, the turnout must have been 94%. This
may seem possible until one looks at the number of New voters
necessary to make up the difference - 24.103 million.

Because of the necessary constraints (122.26 million total
2004 vote, maximum number of 2000 voters alive who could vote
in 2004) the difference had to made up by New voters -  3
million more than the 21.15 million, as confirmed by the (Did
Not Vote) 17% weighting. And more importantly, by the voting
identity equation. Clearly impossible.

*****************************************************
	
Kerry margin: 3.46 million			
Kerry Deviation from Exit Poll:-1.0%			

Gore turnout:100.0%
Bush turnout:100.0%

Voted 2000	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader
21.150	No	17.30%	56.00%	42.00%	2.00%

Consisting of:				
13.448	New	11.00%	55.00%	44.00%	1.00%
7.702	Old	6.30%	57.75%	38.51%	3.75%
					
49.214	Gore	40.25%	90.00%	9.00%	1.00%
48.690	Bush	39.82%	8.00%	92.00%	0.00%
3.206	Nader	2.62%	70.00%	22.00%	8.00%
					
122.26	Total	100.0%	50.94%	48.10%	0.96%
		122.26	62.28	58.81	1.17
**************************************************

	
Kerry Margin: 1.49 million			
Kerry Deviation from Exit Poll:-1.0%			

Gore turnout: 94.0%
Bush turnout:100.0%

Voted 2000	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader
24.103	No	19.71%	56.00%	42.00%	2.00%

Consisting of:				
15.326	New	12.54%	55.00%	44.00%	1.00%
8.777	Old	7.18%	57.75%	38.51%	3.75%
					
46.261	Gore	37.84%	90.00%	9.00%	1.00%
48.690	Bush	39.82%	8.00%	92.00%	0.00%
3.206	Nader	2.62%	70.00%	22.00%	8.00%
					
122.26	Total	100.0%	50.12%	48.90%	0.98%
		122.26	61.27	59.79	1.20

***************************************************

	
Kerry Margin: 0.36 million			
Kerry Deviation from Exit Poll: -2.0%			

Gore turnout: 98.0%
Bush turnout: 100.0%

Voted 2000	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Nader
22.134	No	18.10%	55.00%	43.00%	2.00%

Consisting of:				
14.074	New	11.51%	54.00%	45.00%	1.00%
8.061	Old	6.59%	56.75%	39.51%	3.75%
					
48.230	Gore	39.45%	89.00%	10.00%	1.00%
48.690	Bush	39.82%	7.00%	93.00%	0.00%
3.206	Nader	2.62%	69.00%	23.00%	8.00%
					
122.26	Total	100.0%	49.66%	49.37%	0.97%
		122.26	60.72	60.36	1.18

[alittlelark]

1. Your posts make me weepy

I wish I lived in a different world....

[TruthIsAll]

2. WHERE DID BUSH GET 13.34 MILLION ADDITIONAL VOTES FROM?

He had 62.03mm recorded votes to Kerry's 59.03mm

Assuming all 48.69mm previous Bush 2000 voters who were still alive came to vote in 2004, that's 13.34mm additional votes.

Did he get them from Gore?
Did he get them from Nader?
Did he get them from new voters?

IMPOSSIBLE.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Obviously, God created them.

[Vincardog]

8. it is obvious he got them from Diebol and ES&S as dictated to

by Pat Robertson speaking directly for their GOD.

[TruthIsAll]

11. THE GRAPH: KERRY MARGIN SENSITIVITY

[TruthIsAll]

13. Reading the graph: For Bush to win by 3 million votes, he needed...

For Bush to win by 3 million votes, he needed:

1) Kerry's percentages to be 3% lower that the National Exit poll.

The poll has an overall MoE of 0.86% for 13047 respondents. For the How Voted in 2000 demographic (3168 respondents), the MoE was 1.78%

2) 100% turnout of Bush 2000 voters.

3) 94% turnout of Gore 2000 voters. In other words, 3 MILLION Gore voters stayed home this time.

ALL IMPOSSIBLE!

[TruthIsAll]

12. VERY CLOSE TO THE TRUTH

2000	Weights	Votes	Kerry	Bush	Other
New	18.00%	22.0	12.5	9.0	0.5
Gore	40.10%	49.0	45.0	4.0	*
Bush	39.28%	48.0	4.0	44.0	*
Nader	2.62%	3.2	1.8	0.5	0.9
					
Total	100.0%	122.2	63.30	57.50	1.40
			51.80%	47.05%	1.15%

[clem_c_rock]

4. Thanks - great post - do you have the source?

[TruthIsAll]

5. The sources...

1. Any 2000 election site.

2. Any site of annual U.S. death rate (0.87%) statistics.

3. The National Exit Poll timeline 11027 or 13047 respondent demographic breakdown.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x359332

[clem_c_rock]

6. Man - thanks a lot - great stuff

[autorank]

7. Good Lard!!! Kick/Recommend

Stunning. Let's see the doubters emerge for a real debate.

Hello, anyone out there who can challenge this.

THIS IS A DIALOG I WANT TO SEE AND CRITIQUE

[ooglymoogly]

9. needs to be screamed from the rooftops

recommended

[autorank]

10. Wonder where the 'nay-sayers' are on this one.

Probably working out the formula!

[kiwi_expat]

14. I' d guess more than 50 million voters "voted before 2000 but not in 2000"

...given the normal election turnout rates.

Why would an additional 3 million Bush voters "that voted before 2000, but not in 2000" be "clearly impossible"?


------------------------------------------------------
From original post:
"Because of the necessary constraints (122.26 million total
2004 vote, maximum number of 2000 voters alive who could vote
in 2004) the difference had to made up by New voters - 3
MILLION MORE than the 21.15 million, as confirmed by the (Did
Not Vote) 17% weighting. And more importantly, by the voting
identity equation. Clearly impossible." -TIA

[autorank]

15. kiwi, I don't understand you point. Could you expand.

I think this is another way of looking at it if these formulas are too much:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x368050

[TruthIsAll]

16. Clearly impossible because..New Voters comprised 17%

of the total electorate in 2004, according to all timelines for the National Exit poll (11027,13047,13660 respondents).

Adding 3 million New voters to the 21.15mm in the poll (17.3% of 122mm) is a 14% increase. That means that since we know exactly 122.2 million voted in 2004, there had to be 3 million FEWER Gore+Bush + Nader voters returning to vote in 2004. But the MoE is only 1.77% for the 3168 respondents in the How Voted category.

At the 95% Confidence level, there is a 95% probability that the actual number of New voters is between 20.77mm - 21.52mm.

To put it another way, there is a 97.5% probability that the actual number of New Voters is UNDER 21.52 million

There is no way that there could have been 24 million new voters.
We just proved it.

[kiwi_expat]

17. Isn't that a bit of a circular argument?

The stated purpose of this thread is to disprove the rBr hypothesis. If the rBr hypothesis is true, it would affect the exit poll percentages.

You asked me to study this thread carefully, when I presented the RBV hypothesis in another thread. You said it would refute the hypothesis.

RBV hypothesis: The additional (3 million+) Bush voters were Evangelical Christians who voted prior to 2000, but did not vote in 2000 - and refused to be interviewed by NEP. (i.e., "it was difficult enough to get them to even vote, let alone fill out a NEP questionnaire".) Assume all other Bush voters responded at the same rate as the Kerry voters.

If that hypothesis is correct, the actual voters who "did not vote in 2000" would be a much higher proportion of vote2000 than shown in the exit polls.

Cheers.

[autorank]

18. A bit of common sense, rBv evaporates + electronic tautology

Here is a simple way for you to understand just how utterly stupid the rBv hypothesis is. If the dialog here has not persuaded you, this will help. (1)The "reluctant" Bush Voter is an anomaly among Bush voters. (2) As an anomaly among Bush voters, the rBv does not have the numbers to play a significant role in any sampling error. You may disagree with proposition 1 but 2 is undoubtedly correct.

So how do we tell if the rBv is an anomaly. First, it is concocted out of whole cloth, an after the fact explanation by EM and others sympathetic to or fearful of Bush, designed to get EM et al off the hook for exposing the biggest fraud in American history. Second, the absurdity of the after-the-fact construct is simple to understand. Bush voters were not a shy group. They consisted of evangelicals, hard core Republicans, and others who were not one bit embarrassed by voting for Bush. Let's take the evangelicals, his base. I've lived around evangelicals (Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.). We've all observed them (Rev. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson) in action through their media, underlining my point. The basis of evangelical Christianity is to evangelize, proclaim your faith, stand tall with the savior. Why on earth would these people suddenly draw in on election day when the personification of their savior, GWB, was on the ballot and they'd just finished endorsing the word of God.

The evangelicals were a huge part of the Bush victory. By definition, by experience, by direct observation, they are not now, nor have they ever been "reluctant."

There were rBv's, a few, just as there were rKv's maybe a few more (especially in hot Red areas). To even consider this construct when it is so contrary to the main voting block for Bush is a waste of time.

Here are some interesting places to go, particularly the last one, which I guarantee you will make you a believer in the occasional validity of circular reasoning:

rBv Debunking

eRiposte: Vote Watch 2004
http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

AMERICAFORSALE.org
http://americaforsale.org/mt/archives/cat_november_election.php

Now this is circular reasoning, but it’s right on target
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/04/vote-notes.html

[kiwi_expat]

19. Here's my favorite example of circular reasoning...

...This is the example from our Basic Logic 101 class: "How do I know that God exists? The Bible tells me so." (The Bible's authority being that it is "Divine word of God").


Thanks for you patient efforts with me, autorank. I really do appreciate it.

Of course, I do not really believe that all Evangelical Christians who "did not vote in 2000, but voted before" refused to be interviewed. But I do consider it possible that they might have had a higher refusal rate.

Oh, and I don't believe that Bush won the popular vote by 3 million - although I do think it is POSSIBLE that he might have barely won it. The important thing is that he certainly did not win Ohio!

I think the truth is probably pretty messy. Here is my exit poll vs. canvass equation:

%(Kerry canvass) = %(Kerry raw NEP) -%(sampling error KBnet) -%(uncounted votes KBnet) -%(fraud KBnet) -%(accidental error KBnet)


Cheers!!

[TruthIsAll]

48. Kiwi, Quantify the possibility

"Of course, I do not really believe that all Evangelical Christians who "did not vote in 2000, but voted before" refused to be interviewed. But I do consider it possible that they might have had a higher refusal rate".

Quantify it:
How much 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10%?

And what about Kerry voters?
Its possible they might have had a higher refusal rate.
Quantify it:
How much 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10%?

Oh, you can't?
Why not?

[kiwi_expat]

49. I am happy to see that Mitofsky's scatter plot does NOT support RBV.

:-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369886

If the "Reluctant Bush Voter" hypothesis were correct, I would expect to see the Evangelical Christian "lapsed-voters" skew the "WPE" toward the Bible-belt Bush strongholds. Instead, the regression line drawn through the data shows a "modest upward slope" toward the Kerry strongholds.

The scatter plot does support my contention that some really bad sampling occurred in the exit poll. But the really bad sampling seems to have affected Bush and Kerry equally.

[kiwi_expat]

50. I got it backward.

The regression line drawn through the data shows a "modest upward slope" toward the BUSH strongholds.

[kiwi_expat]

51. I agree: it is possible that Kerry or Bush voters had higher refusal rate.

Autorank has persuaded me to not be argumentative on DU, because DU is a PUBLIC forum and I should not give arguments to the opposition.
I will endeavor to confine my comments to things directly related to Ohio recounts.

However, if you have another one of your "TIA Challenge" threads, I can't promise I will resist. I am only human. (I originally offered the RBV hypothesis on one of those threads. You then insisted that I read this thread carefully. Which I did. And I responded.)


Cheers.

[kiwi_expat]

20. The "Reluctant Respondent" is NOT an anomaly among either B or K voters.

I'm sure you would agree that both Bush and Kerry voters are reluctant. That is why there is a 50% refusal rate.

The so-called "rBr" is actually %Bush-Refusals minus %Kerry-Refusals. (A net which could be positive, negative, or zero.)


Oh, I do love a calm dispassionate discussion. Thanks again!

[autorank]

21. A little passion never hurts now and then or as the song says "love hurts"

Are you psychic? I was thinking about a response to the previous message now that seeing "XXX" has cleared my mind tonight (Ice Cube is great BTW). And then you answer it.

On "circular reasoning/tautology," that was a pun on the third thread from CANNONFIRE (a fine site) which referenced back to the TIA rBv threads, which I think do the trick quite nicely going to best data available. Could there be more data, surely, but the absence of that is "the dog that didn't bark"

I was talking to you or the mysterious "Sawyer" on another thread about EM. I suggested that that firm had two bad choices: (a) arbitrarily alter their findings, one suspects by their behavior, to make the exit polls look like the votes or (b) take on the * administration, Rove & Co, and any corporate customer they might ever have by exposing the pointers to fraud. I've read enough here to convince me that there is enough to take them to court and enough for me, along with all the other proof, to demonstrate fraud with ill intent.

After all, these are the people who decided that: toxic levels of mercury were acceptable in the water supply; that planning a war in advance of any discussion or provocation (2002 memo) is acceptable; covering up death and injury on all sides in that war is fine and dandy; sending our technology and, worse, best jobs overseas is good economic policy; and, my favorite, flying a jumbo jet all over the world which is used both for torture and transporting people to torture in fun places. They've done all of this and much, much more in just 4+ years.

We've got motive (re-election and avoiding prosecution), means (control of the voting machines, easy access to tabulators), and empirical evidence (all the fraud reports, the statistical evidence, etc.).

I'm not an expert on statistics or polling so I'll let someone else respond to your formula. I think that rBv is a key issue but not one with much credibility because there is no reason to presume it would skew "right" (pun) and many reasons to think that the "left" would be intimidated in many parts of the country.

The pre election polling, the post election polling, and, most importantly, the inexcusable refusal of REPUBLICANS and corporate pollsters to open up everything for full examination makes fraud and a stolen election a slam dunk. Each and every variable in the fraud equation reinforces each of the others; the causality is reciprocal and, as a result, undeniable. Of that I am absolutely sure.

At some point, access will be obtained to the primary evidence, testimonials will be heard, and we'll have the answers to these questions.

[kiwi_expat]

22. I totally agree re. suspecting fraud: I can't believe they wouldn't do it

They had the motive, means and opportunity - and they have done much much worse.

But that doesn't necessarily account for the entire difference between the NEP raw data and the canvass results.

As for EM, I thought they freely acknowledged that they arbitrarily altered their findings to make the exit polls look like the votes. They claim that was what they were hired to do. Since they were hired by the U.S. media, that is probably true. Exit polls should be conducted by an independent organization, if the objective is to determine voter intent. (The U.S. media is far from independent.)

Cheers.

[autorank]

23. Smoking Gun time kiwi

"they freely acknowledged that they arbitrarily altered their findings to make the exit polls look like the votes." Well now, why would the media want them to do this? I mean, seriously, isn't this a bit odd. A more accurate statement would be "look like the <Bush> votes" (Bush votes in the proprietary sense). Wouldn't their integrity suffer from poor boundaries between the polling task and whatever the alternative is that incorporates distorting the polling task. There are no independent entities that can do this because they all either cater to corporate clients (either as an organization or individuals) or corporate funding sources. These NEPs are probablyi the last we will have to use to prove fraud. Hop on board and think outside the box...you come up with a theory that supports the NEPs conclusion that Kerry won. Afterall, that's what happened.

On Edit: N.B. Here's a chance to do something and learn at the same time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x368296


:hi:

[kiwi_expat]

24. Here's the beginning of a theory supporting a Kerry win.

"These NEPs are probably the last we will have to use to prove fraud. Hop on board and think outside the box...you come up with a theory that supports the NEPs conclusion that Kerry won."-AR

I'll work on it!

My latest thinking is that the fraud occurred where there was very little exit polling. This could have been quite deliberate.

The only state I have looked at is Ohio. I understand that Bush's big last-minute surge occurred in Clermont, Butler and Warren counties. There were a total of 3 NEP precincts in those counties (Butler 2, Clermont 1, Warren 0), compared to 7 NEP precincts in neighboring Hamilton County.

It looks as though the Greens recount in Hamilton County was pretty clean. By contrast, the recount in Clermont County was a disaster. (see www.votecobb.org )

Liam_laddie will try to do a Sunshine-law recount of at least one precinct each in Hamilton and Clermont counties. Then we will see how clean Hamilton really is and just how bad Clermont is.

I'm not sure how to tie this into the NEP results. Any suggestions?


Cheers.

[TruthIsAll]

34. Kiwi, that is downright radical for you to say that.

"My latest thinking is that the fraud occurred where there was very little exit polling. This could have been quite deliberate".


So then you agree that the exit polls were right on?

How do we tie it in to the NEP results?

Well if the exit polls were in precincts in which where there was no fraud, then comparable non-exit deomograpic precincts should produce comparable results, right?

So maybe the folks at UCSV better take a look at your data.

[Sawyer]

25. Why would the media want them to do this?

Because that is how exit polls are done in the US and have always been done. Because doing them the other way would cost too much.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html

I know that you think that MysteryPollster is a "fraud apologist" - but try reading this objectively, after all, he is just reporting factual information. Compare the way the exit polls that are designed to detect fraud (German) are done to the way the exit polls that are not designed to do that (US) are done. Do you see the difference?

[Peace Patriot]

26. In 2004, we were testing out a new and highly controversial voting...

...system nationwide for the first time--including controversies surrounding the complete unverifiability of one third of the vote due to paperless electronic voting machines (and Tom Delay's blockade of a paper trail in Congress), the partisan (major Bush donor) ownership and control of the secret, proprietary software used in electronic voting machines and tabulators, and, adding to this, pre-election vote suppression against Democratic voters in Ohio, Florida and other places (including reports of RNC operatives shredding Democratic voter registrations in western states, the Republican Sec of State of Ohio inventing new and bizarre rules for voter registration, and the Republican Gov and Sec of State of Florida purging thousands of black voters from the voting rolls), not to mention the high profile controversies of the 2000 election, which resulted in the installation of the highly insecure, hackable, unreliable electronic voting systems in 2004.

This situation CRIED OUT for fraud detection exit polls. To deliberately choose exit polls not specifically designed for that purpose was to commit a huge violation of the public trust to begin with. To then continue to suppress the raw data from those polls is further violation of the public trust, as is failing to conduct a thorough investigation of the official tally that is so at variance with the exit polls, and instead making up a damned lie about it.

If the Bush regime had wanted a verifiable and transparent election, why didn't we have one?

If the news monopolies had wanted a verifiable and transparent election, why didn't they insist on one, and commission exit polls specifically for that purpose--especially in view of the stolen election in 2000?

Finally, as for rBr, I will repeat here what I have posted elsewhere. Last week, 30 members of a Baptist Church in Waynesville, NC, were expelled from their church for refusing to pledge support to Bush. Think back to the election, and imagine these Baptist dissenters from the Bush paradigm in a polling place, probably not far from their church, having decided to vote for Kerry but feeling bullied by their pastor and others in the congregation, and fearful of the repercussions for their vote. They could count on the secret ballot to protect the privacy of their vote. But what if a stranger claiming to be an exit pollster approached them afterward and asked them to state who they voted for, there in a public place where anyone could hear their answer?

Is this not the most likely "reluctant responder" of all--a person voting for Kerry amidst intense pro-Bush social pressure and intimidation in a Bush stronghold?

Yes, I think there were Evangelical reluctant responders--and I think they were people who saw through the B.S. of Bush's war and his lies and his torture policy and his favoritism to the rich and his Christian hypocrisy, who voted for Kerry and whose votes were stolen because it was the easiest place to do so without detection.

Now think about the OTHERS in that church--the repressive majority who kicked these 30 members out of their church for not pledging support for Bush. Think they're shy? Think they would have anything to fear from disclosing a vote for Bush in that social and political atmosphere?

This recent news story is a very strong counter to the "rBr" theory. It gives it the lie. Republicans may have been "reluctant responders" in the past. But if this news item is even partly reflective of social conditions within the Republican subculture, Republicans for Bush in 2004 were not just loud about their support, they were repressive of others' rights to vote for anyone else. Shyness and reluctance--and even just plain civility--do not seem to be notable characteristics of Bush 2004 voters.

[Sawyer]

27. Well,

"This situation CRIED OUT for fraud detection exit polls." - if it did, maybe the Democratic Party should have commissioned one, at the cost of $100M+ or so. The MSM apparently didn't want to spend that kind of money.

"To deliberately choose exit polls not specifically designed for that purpose was to commit a huge violation of the public trust to begin with." - that's your opinion. I don't see it as a "deliberate choice" - it was just doing what was done always. Exit polls on the scale that is needed to do fraud detection have never been done in this country, and require some things (such as state participation in demographic data gathering) that has never happened.

[autorank]

28. There is enough evidence now. Your argument is specious.

There is more than enough evidence that fraud took place, through existing polling evidence and through direct testimonials from those who observed it in state and local government. Keep in mind, the polling data used by USCV, TIA, Freeman, etc. was not provided the way one scholar would provide his data set to another (a common courtesy among academic researchers). Even with the proprietary protections of the commercial concerns and the deliberate withholding of information by government entities, the polling data raises huge questions, the type that warrant an investigations.

With regard to spending $10 million (a previous figure you offered) or the newly minted $100 million on exit polling, the implication of your argument is, "hey, if you won't spend the money, you can expect the crime to take place." We do not spend huge sums of money that would could to make sure that certain crimes NEVER took place. When a crime does take place, we use that available evidence to pursue and prosecute the criminal.

It's time to stop apologizing for the criminals with these types of arguments. What's the point.

[Sawyer]

29. The $10 million is what exit polls cost now -

the $100 million is what they would cost if they were designed the same way as the fraud-detecting exit polls are designed in Germany.

It was you who asked why that type of poll was not conducted. The cost is the answer. You may not like the answer, but there it is.

[autorank]

31. We don't need them to deal with 2004. That begs the question.

I am convinced that the various problems with the polling data and the polling prior to and during the election is sufficient to cry fraud in 2004. Add this to the deliberate obfuscation, the holding back and destruction of evidence (e.g., New Mexico), the general appalling behavior by the Bush administration which essentially operates like a criminal enterprise (from the tragedy of Iraq to this weeks bogus "air threat" to the WH timed to stomp on the Ridge story) and you have the best cause of action for criminal action in the 2004 election. This discussion is on fraud 2004. The answer to that is not a poll in 2006 and 2008.

Why don't you outline your case for fraud in the 2004 election with your evidence or say you don't think it took place.?

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. No, it is not that he does not like your answer (not "the" answer) .

It is that he considers your positing such a rationale, dismissing the issue of a check on the honesty of the ultimate vote count, as a mere taradiddle, virtually on the grounds of immemorial custom - amounts to an absolutely unconscionable complacency.

"Because we always did things that way", as if to say, "Electoral fraud is as American as Mom and apple pie. We're happy with it. Why aren't you!"

Quite apart from domestic considerations of the rights of your own citizenry to a fair election, you don't appear to wonder at all how the wholesale, ramshackle electoral fraud across the country, (while you are trying to "spread democracy" to the four corners of the globe), might impinge upon the perceptions of America of an incredulous world, already full of compassion for you, as a people.

[Peace Patriot]

30. Oh, I see! The Republicans block election verification measures in

Congress, and major Bush donors gain control over the vote count with secret, proprietary programming code, and the Republican Secretaries of State in two states commit egregious violations of the Voting Rights Act, and furthermore in both cases act to prevent a verifiable vote count, and the Republican Department of Justice does nothing about this, and the news monopolies just go right along like the lapdogs they are, and even deny the American public the true result of the exit polls that they did do, thus denying the American public important evidence of fraud, and it's the DEMOCRATS' fault for not commissioning their own exit polls! It's all clear now.

You know, I'm willing enough to believe in the corruption and collusion of some Democratic Party leaders, but I am NOT willing to look there for the heart of the problem, when I have a mountain of evidence screaming at me of REPUBLICAN and specifically Bush Cartel election fraud--including motive, means and opportunity, coverup plans (no paper trail), intent to defraud (Ohio, Florida), a history of election fraud (2000, 2002), and exit polls that, whatever test they are put to, show that we got a wrong result for president in the official tally in 2004.

And when I see what the news monopolies did to us on Iraq WMDs, and other issues, I am not really all that willing to blame the Democrats--at least primarily--for the news monopolies' failure to provide the American people with accurate information, and with the proper tools and information to verify the election. I think they don't give a damn. I think they are war profiteers and liars, just like their brethren in the White House.

Some day, if we ever get back our right to vote, we will deal with corrupt and collusive Democrats democratically, by voting them out of office. As for the above, I do hope that some day we have the power to place the Bush Cartel criminals where they belong, before the World Court, and are able to elect a "big stick" kind of president who will pull the licenses of all the news monopoly broadcasters for what they have done to this country.

Those are public licenses. Those are our airwaves. And the people who now control them deserve to be answering the phone in a radio station in Antarctica or Uzbekistan for the rest of their lives--if that.

They get billions and billions of dollars in political advertising. They get billions and billions and billions MORE dollars using OUR airwaves for mostly inferior news and entertainment that fosters stupidity and passivity, and for promulgating Bush propaganda. Enough money passes through their hands during one Super Bowl to fund a decent exit poll. That's crap, that it was too expensive. Just crap.

[autorank]

32. Great post, nothing to add but: Charge for air waves; defund NPR/PBS!

[kiwi_expat]

35. Here is why I think the rBr/rKr hypothesis is worth considering.

First of all let's remember that the so-called "rBr" is actually %Bush-Refusals minus %Kerry-Refusals: a net which could be positive, negative, or zero. There is more than a 50% refusal rate, overall.

I can only discuss Ohio, because I have not looked at the situation in any other state.

I re-visited the rBr hypothesis after the Democratic poll observers for the Hamilton County precinct, Cincinnati 4-M, reported that large numbers of "repub types" were ignoring the NEP interviewer.

The interviewer at Cincy4M was inexperienced and quite discouraged, according to the observers. He might even have gone home early. The problem was that he was required to stand 100ft. away from the poll - where the various campaigners were standing. (The voters were not coming out in an orderly single-file. They were fanning out in all directions from the polling place door.) It was pouring rain and he didn't have an umbrella. After about 4 o'clock it was getting dark, as well. His NEP button would not have been very visible after that.

According to the official results, 1754 people came out of that polling place. He only managed to sample 31 of them. (NEP said that its target was 100 samples per polling place.) His raw responses showed a Kerry 68% win. The canvass results showed a 46% Kerry result for the entire polling place and a 40% Kerry result for Cincy4M, itself.

Are there certain types of people who are more likely to ignore an inexperienced (timid) person - who looks like he is probably a campaigner - trying to stop them in the pouring rain? The answer is almost certainly Yes.

The question here is, are those types of people, as a group, slightly more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters? I think it is quite possible that the answer is yes. (Perhaps I am biased, but I think that Republicans, as a group, tend to be ruder.)

Under more favorable conditions, those people might not ignore an interviewer. Especially an experienced one.


The fact that E/M presented this hypothesis after the fact does not automatically make it incorrect. I don't know about other states, but thanks to Blackwell, the 2004 NEP interviewing situation in Ohio was far worse than it has ever been before.


Cheers.

[TruthIsAll]

36. Could the Repub "type" actually have been Repubs for Kerry?

Who wanted to get the hell out of there real quick.
Did you ever once consider that scenario?

Were they shy?
You know otherwise. Remember the Dade county recount?

Could it be that the 6% difference was due to disaffected Repubs?

If you are going to consider the E-H hypothesis, I suggest you read Peace Patriot's thread. Her theory makes a lot more sense.

Let's get real.

If you were a Repub for Kerry, would you tell your Repub boss?
Would you tell any of your Repub buddies?
Would you tell anyone unless your best friend who felt the same way you did?

On the other hand, if you were an aggressive Repub for Bush, wouldn't you want to advertise the fact? Wouldn't you want to be exit-polled to convince the world that your boy really did win?

COMMON SENSE GOES A LONG WAY.

[kiwi_expat]

38. Liam-laddie is going to be recounting Cincy4M

We'll find the truth about that precinct very soon.

[TruthIsAll]

41. One lousy precinct. And what will that prove?

I gave you an analysis of 122 million voters.

[kiwi_expat]

44. What percent of Ohio NEP precincts should we recount - to find fraud?

I am not being facetious.

According to your hypothesis, how many Ohio NEP precincts would we need to recount to find fraud? Obviously 100% would do it. Would 50%? Of the 49 Ohio NEP precincts, 50% are in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Summit counties (plus throw in one precinct in Clermont county). We will soon have the NEP precinct names for all those counties - so we will be able to match them to the NEP data.

It would only take 4 DUers to recount the NEP precincts in those counties.

Liam_laddie is already committed to recounting 2-3 Hamilton precincts plus at least one in Clermont County. If he selected only NEP precincts to recount, that would be ONE THIRD of the Ohio precincts used in the NEP national poll.

I would be willing to come from New Zealand to recount Cuyahoga County NEP precincts (I have relatives in Cleveland), if I felt fairly confident we would find TABULATOR fraud. (There is no doubt that mixed-precinct punched card errors/fraud occurred in Cuyahoga, but ,unfortunately, that would not affect the totals in a recount.)

Any other volunteers?

Cheers.

[TruthIsAll]

45. The more the better, but I think 10 would do it.

A recount should result in a 50/50 even split, right?
Five for Bush and five for Kerry.

Let's say you do 10 recounts and Kerry improves his score in all of them. The probability of that is (1/2)^10 or 1 in 1024.
That would be a solid case for fraud.

Now let's assume an average precinct MoE of 4%.
At the 95% confidence level, the probability Kerry's vote would increase by 3% in a given precinct is 1 in 15:

P (>3%) = .067 = 1/15 = NORMDIST(0.485,0.515,0.02,TRUE)

The probability that Kerry would gain 3% in at least N=6 of 10 precincts is 1 in 16,661:

P = 1- Binomdist (N-1, 10, .067 ,TRUE)

Here are the probabilities of Kerry gaining 3% in N or more of the 10 precincts:

N Prob 1 in

1 5.00E-01 2
2 1.41E-01 7
3 2.53E-02 40
4 3.05E-03 328
5 2.56E-04 3,913

6 1.50E-05 66,661

7 6.07E-07 1,647,884
8 1.62E-08 61,872,978
9 2.56E-10 3,911,457,732

[kiwi_expat]

46. I'll wait until after Liam's results - then I'll book a flight unless.....

....
(1) Liam's recounts prove fraud or
(2) some other DUer volunteers to recount the NEP precincts in a big Ohio county. :-)


(I'm sure that Kucinich's office would provide some help if anyone wanted to do Cuyahoga.)

********************
on edit:

Actually, the precincts would not have to be NEP precincts, would they? If that is true, then Warren and Butler would be good counties in which to examine a few precincts.

[autorank]

37. kiwi, You're heading into "tortured logic" territory.

So why are you so set on enabling the election fraud "debunkers." These scenarios are meaningless when you look at the analysis of just the data that is availablt to statisticians who are proclaiming election fraud. What's you point, at this point?

[kiwi_expat]

39. This is just among friends.

I would not be enabling the election fraud "debunkers", unless I went public. I wouldn't do that.

I am actually trying to figure out what happened in Ohio. I will consider any plausible hypothesis.

My fervent hope is that we can prove fraud with liam-laddie's recounts. And that that "smoking gun" will get the big organizations to move in and manually recount the entire state.

My suspicion is that the national discrepancy, between the canvass and the exit poll data, is a combination of all the possible factors: sampling-bias, uncounted votes, fraud, and "accidental" errors. (I use quotes around "accidental" because the net Kerry error loss is probably due to institutional bias.)

But if it is important to lay it all at the door of fraud, I will shut up.

[autorank]

40. Kiwi, among friends, this is PUBLIC. Why do you think the "nay-sayers"

are here? Don't shut up, not at all but open you mind to the notion that there is plenty of evidence to point to fraud. Quibbling over details or starting from go (at this point) doesn't do us any good. No need to consider "any plausible hypothesis"...you and I will both be dust before that process is complete. You know how I feel about your buddy in Ohio. This is just part of the picture, a very important part. There are other parts that are put forth by statisticians with no previous ax to grind (here, USCountsVotes.Org, etc.). Come home to lovely Ohio and help your buddy or get that wild e-paper from NZ to do some more hot reporting.

:hi:

[kiwi_expat]

42. Point taken.

And I wasn't thinking about the fact that anyone can *read* DU - not just the members.


Cheers!

[autorank]

43. Here's some bedtime reading for you. Reasonable price too!

There should be a DU discount.
http://www.academychicago.com/conyers.html
:hi:

[kster]

47. kick.nt