The Nashua Advocate: The Orange Report, No. 1

[nashuaadvocate]

Introducing a new feature in The Nashua Advocate: The Orange Report (O.R.). This frequent update of important election reform news will hopefully become a mainstay at The Advocate. Find it at --

http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

An excerpt from O.R.1:

"If someone told you that on November 2nd, 2004, the only significant national exit-polling conducted in America was overseen by twelve anonymous men snacking on junk food above a Woolworth's in Somerville, New Jersey, would you believe them?

You'd better, because it's true."

E-mail us your thoughts and comments at --

[email protected]

Keep up the good work!

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[ailsagirl]

1. Thank you again for coming through with your wise words...

Your website is firmly ensconced in my Favorites and I will be visiting it every day!!

[Cha]

2. Good ol' New Hampshire went

for Kerry! Good on "The Nashua Advocate"!

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Thanks for keeping us posted....

[Bill MI]

4. Give me a break!

What are you trying to say here?

Mitofsky invented exit polling.

They have been proven by their performance in previous US elections and others around the world for many years.

Their ability to detect the SUGGESTION of fraud has been proven.

That's all we need for an investigation.

[nashuaadvocate]

6. Break given, Bill. And what we're saying is...

...we don't know nearly as much about how the process of exit-polling in America works as we should, which is one reason the nation doesn't have any of the data yet that it needs to make informed judgments about the election. For example --

Did you know three exit-polling reports were to be issued on Election Day? And does that affect your understanding of how accurate the 1,963-person sample was *supposed* to be? (Read: pretty darn accurate, as it was likely the third report).

If you had wanted to protest outside Mitofsky's headquarters on Election Day, would you have known where to go?

How much did you know about who was collecting the data, and how?

This O.R. clearly implies -- and The Advocate has frequently stated -- that U.S. exit-polling *has* been enormously accurate in the past. So it should be clear that we're *not* contesting the accuracy of exit-polling -- in fact, quite the opposite.

The *point* is, Bill, Mitofsky/Edison International is a "black box" that thus far election reform advocates haven't been able to penetrate. And they must do so. They should be agitating *now* for the immediate release of that data, particularly in light of several e-mails recently sent by Mitofsky (not included in the O.R.; one or two were posted here at D.U.) which make this seventy year-old man seem not only puerile and petulant, but also -- more importantly -- uncommonly over-defensive.

What do he and his twelve pizza-eating friends know, that we don't know?

-- The News Editor

[nashuaadvocate]

7. P.S.

Bill, did you read only the excerpt, or the entire Report? Also, do you read The Advocate?

I'd suggest you read the whole Report, if you haven't.

Anyway, I'd be disappointed if *anyone* thought -- however erroneously -- that the "point" of our coverage of exit-polling issues has been to suggest that exit-polling is *inaccurate*. It's not; it's very accurate -- more accurate, in fact, than any other form of polling presently known.

True, we did a report suggesting that the Ukrainian exit polls were suspicious, but I think the story targeted quite nicely what that fact revealed about the hypocrisy and double-speak of Team Bush.

-- The News Editor

[Bill MI]

10. You're wrong

Here is what Mitofsky has to say in his defense:

<http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/MethodsStatementNationalFinal.pdf>


The part that stands out to me is

"The National exit poll was conducted at a sample of 250 polling places among 11,719 Election Day voters representative of the United States."

[newyawker99]

13. Hi Bill MI!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bill MI]

5. Don't get mad, get LOUD!!!

We need to flood the Judiciary Repuglicans with e-mails, letters, and phone calls in order to get them to understand how important this is. They MUST hold FULL investigations with subpeona powers.

<http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx>

The idiots have megaphones, but we have numbers!

The Senate Democrats were cowed, this time by their constituents, into doing what they should have done in 2000. We can't stop now. The Fight has only begun!

[frictionlessO]

8. Very very nice! Thank you so much for what you do!

The more orange reports we have the better the battle will go for us!

Viva la Orange!

[euler]

9. My two cents

"Exit polls, which are used in elections around the globe to eliminate the possibility of election fraud, are -- according to Warren Mitofsky...not intended for this purpose in America."

Mitofsky offers a service to customers (usually MSM). He asks his customers what they would like the exit poll to do for them. In the US, MSM (the customer) has traditionally asked for exit polls that will enable them to make really cool statements about the demographics of the election. Since they are the customer, Mitofsky designs a poll that will give them what they want. Unfortunately, an exit poll designed to ONLY let the customer make really cool statements about the demographics of the election, is poorly suited for election verification.

Now, Mitofsky could design a exit poll that does everything the MSM wants AND is also well suited for election verification, but such a poll costs a lot more money because it requires a true random sample of respondents. His customers aren't going to pay for something they didn't ask for, so he would have to absorb this cost himself.

So, while it may be a vital point you are trying to make, it's not hard to understand why this exit poll is not well suited for election verification, and it has nothing to do with 'fecklessness and lack of professionalism.'

In Germany, they really like there exit polls to offer reassurances that the election was fair and free of shenanigans. So, they design a exit polls that will give them what they want.

Exit polls are all about design and cost. Hopefully, you and other alternate (is this accurate word for what your paper is ?) news papers will pay for this in 2008. I doubt MSM will.

All about German exit polls here:

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

-------------------------------------------------------------

One last unrelated thing that may help your reporting: Exit polls that make it possible to say really cool demographic things about the election DON"T HAVE TO BE TAKEN FROM A RANDOM SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS, and it would be silly for Mitofsky to try for a true random sample of respondents when he doesn't have to (the cost thing.) This is the primary reason it is not possible to use statistics like Stephen Freeman does. His analysis is bunk, and he admits as much (though I doubt he is aware of it) on page 3 of the most recent version of his paper.

[Bill MI]

11. It has been refined

over the years to eliminate error. Many, many reputable people (who were involved with it) will tell you that Mitofsky genuinely tried to be as accurate as possible.

You, sir, are the conspiriy theorist.

[nashuaadvocate]

12. Apparently, Bill, you won't take "yes" for an answer...

...I've already said exit polls are accurate.

I'm sure Mitofsky tried to do his job well -- his lack of professionalism has made itself evident <em>post-election</em>,

because of his refusal to release his raw data (consistent with professional standards in the polling industry); and

because of his snotty responses to criticism of his work; and

because of his erroneous statements about the purposes of exit polls; and

because of his unwillingness to acknowledge that the third report his exit-pollsters issued on Election Day was properly weighted for all sub-categories of voters (which it was); and

because of his "adjustment" of the numbers by actually *deleting* votes for one of the candidates -- and *adding* votes to another candidate -- without changing the demographic breakdown of his sample-size whatsoever.

Which *is* bunk.

-- The News Editor