Nederland now agrees: The Recorded votes and Final Exit poll are bogus.

[TruthIsAll]

"Same problem"
Posted by Nederland

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x341540#342280

I = R + S + F

R is known
S is known
I is unknown
F is unknown

You are therefore left with an unsolvable equation because you need (at least) two equations to resolve two unknowns.
..............................................................

Nederland, thanks for your post regarding the equation:
I = R + S + F.

where:
I = intended vote
R = recorded vote
S = spoiled vote factor
F = fraud factor

You have just proven that:
1) the Recorded vote is wrong
and
2) the Final exit poll which matches to the Recorded vote is wrong.

Here is the proof:

Since, you state that R and S are known,
then R > 0 and S > 0,
and we must have
I > R and I - R > 0

Therefore,
the Intended vote (I) is greater than the Recorded vote (R).

It logically follows that the Recorded vote must be bogus, as it does not match the Intent of ALL of the voters.

And you didn't need to solve for the two unknowns to see that.

Talinkg it a step further, Mitofsky's FINAL exit poll must also be bogus, since he adjusts the Preliminary Exit poll weights in order to match the (incorrect) Recorded vote.

Nederland, you are half way there.
Thanks for proving my point.

The final unknown is the Fraud. If the preliminary exit poll was essentially correct, then we can approximate F, although we would still need to add another unknown the Disenfranchisement (D) factor, which is not picked up in the preliminary or final exit poll.

Now, if you will accept that programmed fraud did occur when the touchscreens switched Kerry votes to Bush (in 99% of these documented "glitches"), you will finally reach the promised land of the TRUTH.

[Wilms]

1. "The Promised Land" is All n/t

[whistle]

2. I agree we never had a true vote count

[johnaries]

3. When variation of the exit poll vs the ballot count is outside

the MOE in so many cases, obviously one of them is wrong.

Every "excuse" that has been made for the exit poll being wrong just doesn't make sense, as has been discussed many times here and in other forums. However, we have had many reports of "irregularities" involving the ballot count, as well as the casting of ballots.

Logic dictates that the greatest potential for error is in the "official" vote, not in the exit polls.

Therefore, logic would dictate that the exit polls were more accurate than the ballot count.

[Nederland]

9. Question

I would say that the only way to validate the accuracy of the exit polls samples is to look at recorded results.

Can you tell me of another way?

[TruthIsAll]

14. LOL - you have it backwards

Which exit poll are you referring to?
The original one which showed that Kerry won?
Or the final, which massaged the original to match the bogus vote?

The pre-massaged exit poll sample should validate the vote, not the other way around. But it can't because the recorded vote is invalid to begin with.

So what are we left with?

[kiwi_expat]

4. A reminder: (net) Fraud can be zero or negative

Let

S = NET votes Switched between candidates (non-accidental)
L = cast votes Lost (non-accidentally)
P = Phantom votes gained (by intent)

F = S + L - P


In terms of TOTAL votes, a zero or negative Fraud is quite possible, if virtually all Fraud is switched votes.

In terms of a particular candidate's votes, a zero or negative Fraud is probable for some candidates (i.e., third party/Republican), in my opinion.

[berniew1]

5. Irregardless of the numbers, look at the evidence and its clear that

this wasn't a serious election. Huge amounts of fraud, malfeasance, misfeasance, manipulation, and suppression are documented in most states. We have a serious problem with elections controlled by partisan individuals and partisan poll workers. This is the worst such I've seen and I've been monitoring elections for a long time. Documentation:
http://www.flvc.com/summary.html

(by state)

[anamandujano]

7. I always love it when

the talking heads cover everything with "there are problems in every election", then proceed to talk about how Kennedy cheated Nixon in 1960.

That was then, this is now, WE WANT CLEAN ELECTIONS.

[Melissa G]

8. kick for bernview's great work!

[kster]

6. kick................nt

[kiwi_expat]

10. I = R IS POSSIBLE

....if (Phantom votes - Lost votes) = Spoiled votes. (See post 4.)

[TruthIsAll]

12. You are really stretching it.

You define:
Phantom votes - lost votes = spoiled votes.

Then you must have:
Phantom votes = Lost votes + spoiled votes

So Phantom votes for Kerry = Net Kerry Spoiled votes + Kerry votes lost to fraud?

Right. The Democrats phantom vote machine. Sure.

In 2004, Kerry lost votes to Bush on touchscreens and optiscans.
He lost votes from natural (and fraudulent) ballot spoilage. The "phantom votes" were the votes switched from Kerry to Bush in cyberspace.

You make the bogus argument that fraud could be equal between Dems and Repubs when its the Repubs who need it to win elections.

Not Likely.

KISS

[kiwi_expat]

15. I was referring to "TOTAL" I = R. Weren't you talking about TOTAL R ?

You didn't mention that you were only talking about Kerry's votes.

I agree that S + F for Kerry would be positive.

And S + F for Bush could be negative.

[Nederland]

11. Pragmatic Problem

There is a pragmatic problem with your argument. By your logic any election with spoilage is illegitimate. This means that no election ever held anywhere was legitimate. If you buy into this argument, how are we supposed to elect leaders?

The bottom line is that elections will always have a degree of error. The goal should be to minimize that error, but to think that it can be eliminated is naive.

[TruthIsAll]

13. Very weak response. Another strawman, my philosopher friend.

We are talking about the exit polls and the recorded vote count, aren't we? Don't try to squirm away.

The question you fail to answer is this:
Is matching the "final" exit poll to the vote count, by adjusting the weightings of the "preliminary exit poll", legitimate? After all, it is a given that spoilage occurs - and that it hurts the democrats far more than the repubs...

Why match the exit poll to the final, inaccurate recorded vote? Isn't that just propagating a lie? EXCLUSIVE OF FRAUD, the true intended vote is somewhere between the preliminary exit poll and the recorded vote.

So as I have said, Nederland, you are halfway there.

Preliminary exit poll <= X > Recorded vote.
X, the Intended Kerry vote, may still become equal to the Preliminary exit poll percentage when fraud is accounted for.

But we already know for sure that X is NOT equal to the Recorded vote.

Do you have another philosophical, hypothetical argument to counter this logic with?

Or will you next claim that 1 + 1 = 3?

[Nederland]

16. Answer

Is matching the "final" exit poll to the vote count, by adjusting the weightings of the "preliminary exit poll", legitimate?

Yes. Weighting the final exit poll result using input from the recorded vote count is the only way to adjust for sampling error.

Since I answered your question, I ask a question of you:

Is it possible to verify the representativeness of a sample without referencing the recorded vote?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

18. Please answer my question

I answered yours, its only fair that you answer mine.

[TruthIsAll]

19. Are you serious? I just did. I told you fresh-squeeze OJ.

That means pristine OJ. Not concentrated.

OK, you obviously need some help.

Fresh-squeezed = Preliminary exit poll (good)
Concentrated = contaminated final exit poll (no good)

We do not need nor do we want to match to a bogus vote count.
The original sample-design, based on historical trends established for the weights, and which may be adjusted further in the equivalent to the 13047 respondent exit poll, after the polls close, is sufficient.

NOW I WILL GO TO ALL CAPS:
MATCHING TO THE VOTES ONLY SERVES TO CAMOUFLAGE THE SPOILED VOTES AND THE FRAUD.
IT PROVIDES A FALSE CONFIRMATION BY DESIGN.
DO YOU REALLY WANT THIS?
I SUPPOSE YOU DO IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU MUST WIN AT ANY COST.
AND IF YOU BELIEVE THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

DID YOU SEE MY POST TODAY IN WHICH I SHOW THAT THE FINAL 2004 EXIT POLL WEIGHTS IN THE 2000 VOTE CATEGORY PRODUCE AN IMPOSSIBLE NUMBER OF VOTES FOR BUSH IN 2000 (THEY ARE TOO HIGH BY 2 MILLION OR 4%).

THE PRELIMINARY WEIGHTS GIVE A MUCH MORE ACCURATE RESULT (WITHIN .5 MILLION OR 1%).

CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT ONE?

DON'T MIX THE DAMN RECORDED VOTES WITH THE PRISTINE EXIT POLL.
BECAUSE THEY GIVE BOGUS RESULTS AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THE WRONG GUY WON.

THERE'S YOUR ANSWER.
GOT IT?

BTW, I NOTICE YOU HAVE IGNORED MY SIMULATION POST WHICH PUTS TO REST YOUR SO-CALLED "PROOF" THAT THE MOE CANNOT BE 1% DUE TO PRECINCT ERROR. IT WAS THE FIRST ANALYSIS I'VE SEEN FROM YOU IN THE 2.5 YEARS THAT YOU'VE BEEN KNOCKING MY WORK.

FINALLY, YOU GAVE ME AND OTHERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CRITIQUE YOUR WORK.
HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE ON THE RECEIVING END FOR ONCE?
TOO BAD YOUR "PROOF" WAS A TOTAL JOKE.

NICE TRY, ANYWAY.
BETTER LUCK NET TIME.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BE PREPARED.
WITH THE FACTS.
AND A LITTLE MATH.

[Nederland]

20. Question

Since you don't want to verify the exit poll sample with the recorded vote, how do you propose to verify that the sample is representative?