Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A 9TH GRADE ALGEBRAIC SMOKING GUN.

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 Fri Apr-01-05 12:43 AM
Original message
A 9TH GRADE ALGEBRAIC SMOKING GUN.
Edited on Fri Apr-01-05 01:42 AM by TruthIsAll
The Final National Exit Poll's impossible 43/37% Bush/Gore
2000 voter mix is a very revealing demographic. 

But Uscountvotes.org never mentioned it in their report. 

I think it is potentially the biggest smoking gun of all. 

Here is an extremely persuasive mathematical argument ( I
won't use the word proof) that the Bush 43% had to be at least
3% higher than the true number, which means that the Gore 37%
number was at least 3% too low. We will derive this result
using actual vote statistics from 2000 and 2004, as well as
the annual U.S. death rate, to determine approximately how
many 2000 voters could possibly have voted in 2004. 

We will just need some basic elementary algebra.
All totals are in millions of votes.

Here are the basic stats:
V2004 = Total votes in 2004 = 122.26
V2000 = Total Votes in 2000 = 104.77
B2000 = Bush 2000 votes = 50.456 
G2000 = Gore 2000 votes = 50.999 
O2000 = Nader/other 2000 votes = 3.322
D2000 = 2000 voters who have died = 3.67 (3.5% of 104.77)

Note: 3.5% is the approximate percentage of 2000 voters who
have since died, based on the annual death rate of 8.7 per
1000.

Let's calculate NEW, the MINIMUM number of 2004 voters who did
not vote in 2000.

The basic equation is: 
V2004  = 122.26 = B2000 + G2000 + O2000 - D2000 + NEW
or
V2004  = V2000 - D2000 + NEW

Therefore,
122.26 = 104.77 - 3.67 + NEW
NEW = 122.26 - 104.77 +3.67 = 21.16 

The NEW Voter weight (NW) must be AT LEAST 17.3%:
NW = 17.3% = 21.16/122.26
NW EXACTLY matches (after rounding) the Final Exit Poll New
Voter percentage of 17%.

The MAXIMUM number of returning Bush 2000 voters is 48.69,
after subtracting the 3.5% who died from B2000 (50.456).

The MAXIMUM Bush weight BW = 39.8% (48.69/122.26), which is
3.2% below the Final Exit Poll (43%).
 
The MAXIMUM number of returning Nader/Other 2000 voters is
3.20, after subtracting the 3.5% who died from N2000 (3.322).

The MAXIMUM Nader/Other weight OW = 2.6% (3.322/122.26), or
0.4% below the Final Exit Poll (3)%.

The MAXIMUM number of returning Gore voters (GM) must equal
49.27:
Calculate the Gore voter weight:
GW = 100% - (BW + NW + OW)
GW = 100% - (39.8% + 17.3% + 2.6%) 
GW = 100% - 59.7% = 40.3%

GM = 40.3% of 122.26 = 49.27 votes.

WE HAVE JUST SHOWN THAT THE "VOTED 2000" MIX MUST
HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE TO 39.8% BUSH/40.3% GORE, ASSUMING ALL
2000 BUSH AND GORE VOTERS RETURNED TO THE POLLS IN 2004. OF
COURSE, SOME VOTERS STAYED HOME, SO THE BUSH, GORE AND NADER
PERCENTAGES MUST BE LOWER, WHILE THE PERCENTAGE OF NEW VOTERS
MUST BE HIGHER. 

THIS DOES NOT EFFECT THE , FOR THREE REASONS:

1) THE PERCENTAGE OF 2000 VOTERS WHO CHOSE NOT TO VOTE IN 2004
WAS RELATIVELY SMALL.

2) IT IS LIKELY THAT MORE DISENCHANTED BUSH VOTERS STAYED HOME
THAN DID GORE VOTERS, WHO WERE VERY MOTIVATED TO VOTE BUSH OUT
AFTER WHAT HAPPENED IN 2000. 

3) WE KNOW THAT KERRY WON A CLEAR MAJORITY OF NEW VOTERS - BY
54% (13660 EXIT POLL), 57% (13047 POLL) OR 59% (11027 POLL). 

SO, KERRY MUST HAVE DONE EVEN BETTER DUE TO THESE CONSERVATIVE
ASSUMPTIONS. 

USING THE ADJUSTED WEIGHTS, THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION SHOWS
THAT KERRY MUST HAVE WON THE ELECTION EASILY, EVEN IF WE
ASSUME THE FINAL EXIT POLL STATS WHICH WERE ADJUSTED TO MATCH
THE BUSH VOTE. 

HERE'S THE CALCULATION, WITH THE IMPOSSIBLE BUSH/GORE 43/37
MIX CHANGED TO 39.8/40.3%:

VOTED
2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17.3%	45%	54%	1%
Gore	40.3%	10%	90%	0%
Bush	39.8%	90%	9%	1%
Other	2.6%	21%	71%	8%

	100%	48.18%	51.04%	0.78%
	122.26	58.91	62.40	0.95

Kerry wins by 3.50 million votes.
This is probably too low, since in the earlier, pristine 13047
exit poll, he won 57% of New voters and 92% of Gore voters.

If so, Kerry won by 6.95 million votes (52.4-46.7%)	

VOTED
2000	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	17.3%	41%	57%	2%
Gore	40.3%	8%	92%	0%
Bush	39.8%	90%	9%	1%
Other	2.6%	21%	71%	8%
	100%	46.68%	52.37%	0.95%
	122.26	57.07	64.02	1.16

	
	
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalVoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Error...error...error
(Add robot guys voice from "Eurotrip" here)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. LOL - one of my favorite parts of that stupid movie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalVoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I thought the entire movie was hilarious!
Especially the part where he starts singing Man. U.'s theme song. It was awesome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. TIA, have you e-mailed them with this? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. I hope all of this is put together with what the group with Freeman
reported. How I hope that people finally begin LISTENING. I'm betting some of the Europeans are. So much for the showcase of democracy the blivet** keeps blathering about.

Thanks, TIA. Recommended.

(By the way, i never heard back from the Conyers blog site about the list of your earlier threads sent the other day. I recommend you send them to his official government site, if you haven't already. And I hope you and the Freeman group are comparing notes. You obviously are following their work, and I hope they are looking at yours.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. kick......nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Late edit:
Tyo:
THIS DOES NOT EFFECT THE , FOR THREE REASONS:

should read:

This has minimal effect on the results, but would be positive for Kerry, for the following reasons...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. CUTTING TO THE CORE OF THE ANALYSIS...
It comes down to these simple facts:

1. The Final exit poll assumes an impossibility in the 43%/37% how voted in 2000 weighting.

2. Even if all Bush 2000 voters were still alive and returned to vote, his maximum 2000 voter share is only 41%, as stated in the preliminary 13047 exit poll.

3. But approximately 3.5% died, so his maximum is 39.8%.

4. We know that at least 17% were new voters, because we have calculated the change in total voter turnout from 2000 to 2004.

5. We know that 3% voted for Nader/Other.

6. Therefore, if the Bush share is 40%, we can calculate the Gore turnout: 40% = 100-40 -17 -3.

7. Using the Final Election Poll (13660) stats and the 40/40 split, Kerry is an easy winner by 3.5 million votes.

8. Using the Final Election Poll (13047) stats and the 40/40 split, Kerry is a landslide winner by 7 million votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. kick..............nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. Know where I can get some Exit poll data for florida counties
and precincts if available????

Need it before trip to Nashville
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I have no idea Bernie. I have focused 100% on the forest, not the trees..
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashmanonar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. but will anyone listen?
i sure hope so, but i highly doubt it.

but let's shout this from the roof tops! let's get people thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Where's the algebra?
You write: "Note: 3.5% is the approximate percentage of 2000 voters who
have since died, based on the annual death rate of 8.7 per
1000."

The annual death rate is not the same as the voter death rate. You have a false assumption here.

What percentage of the voter age population died?

How did different age groups vote, and at what rate did they die?

And where's the algebra?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You are just kidding, right?
Edited on Sun Apr-03-05 01:27 PM by TruthIsAll
You:
You write: "Note: 3.5% is the approximate percentage of 2000 voters who have since died, based on the annual death rate of 8.7 per
1000."

The annual death rate is not the same as the voter death rate. You have a false assumption here.

Me:
A false assumption?
Can you prove that it is false?
Or do you mean an invalid assumption?
If so, do you have a better estimate?

Are voters not humans, too?
Do they have a significantly different life span than non-voters?
Very strange, specious argument.
You are really stretching it.
What would you use as the voter death rate?
What is your point?

OF COURSE, IT'S A CLOSE APPROXIMATION.
CLOSE ENOUGH TO USE IN THE ANALYSIS
Duh..

You:
What percentage of the voter age population died?

Me:
See above.

You:
How did different age groups vote, and at what rate did they die?

Me:
You really want me to go to the wall on this. Sorry.

Your passion for exactitude which can never be realized betrays your fundamental lack of knowledge in the modeling process. You make the classic error of creating a problem where none exists.

We are talikng very small quantities here, relatively speaking. If the annual death rate for voters is 0.77% and not 0.87%, would it matter one bit as far as far as the essential conculsions are concerned? Of course not.The 4-year number would be 3.08%, not 3.50%.

Now 0.42% of 104.777 = 3.227 million. That's a decrease of 440,000, which would result in slight, but proportional increases in Bush, Gore and Nader voter turnout.

This would have a negligible effect on the final, plausible weights which I have calculated - and even so, would favor neither Bush or Kerry. Furthermore, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that the 43%/37% weighting is IMPOSSIBLE.

I think you get the point.
KISS.

You:
And where's the algebra?

Me:
Ok, call it simple arithmetic.

Total 2004 Vote = New voters + Bush 2000 Voter + Gore 2000 voter + Nader/Other Vote - voters who died - voters who did not vote in 2004.

122.26 = New + 50.456 + 50.999 +3.322 -.035*104.77 - NoVote

We do not know NoVote, the number of 2000 voters who did not vote in 2004, but we do know it is >0.

Therefore,
New = 122.26- 50.456 -50.999 -3.322 +.035*104.77 + NoVote.
or
New = 122.26 - 104.777 + 3.667 + NoVote

Let's assume NoVote=0 for one moment:
New = 17.483 +3.667 + 0
New = 21.15 million

But since NoVote must be > 0, let's take the radical step of assuming a value.

Would you like to try 1%?

If we assume NoVote = 1% of those 2000 voters who were still alive (101.10) and kicking on Election Day 2004 then:

NoVote = .01*101.10 = 1.01 million.

and

New = 21.15+1.01 = 22.16 million.

There is your algebra.

Now where is your logic?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. NO
You asked: "You are just kidding, right?"

I don't need to prove anything. You are the one making the assertion. And, you are not accounting for the variables. I'm just pointing out that flaw.

No all humans are voters. You need to be 18 years old to vote, competint (usually), etc. Eligible voters do not all die at the same rate. Old voters die at higher rates. Old voters have different voting patterns than young voters.

And I'm very disappointed to find simple arithmetic where 9th grade algebra was advertised. I read this thread under false pretenses. I really loved 7th grade trig, and I was curious about what 9th grade algebra would be like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Old voters die; younger voters become old and replace them
Edited on Sun Apr-03-05 06:57 PM by TruthIsAll
What assertion are you referring to?

You have to be over 18 to vote?
Thanks for telling us that.

One point for you to mull over:
Over 122 million voted this time.
That's 40% of the population.

Approximately 0.87% of the ENTIRE population dies every year.
That's a documented fact.

What makes you think that the US. annual death rate for 122 million voters is any different then that of the other 170 million who did not come vote? Only that they are over 18. But that is nitpicking.

Did you ever learn about the Law of Large Numbers?
I suggest you pick up a statistics text.

In this analysis, we are concerned not with age groups, but strictly with the makeup of the 2000 voters who turned out to vote.

I have shown that it is impossible for 43% of the 2004 turnout to be Bush 2000 voters, because he only got 50.456 million votes, and 43% of the 122.26 million who voted in 2004 is 52.57 million.

That, coyote, is the point of the discussion. I have to assume you must be aware of that. One wonders why you throw in this diversionary and sarcastic post, which is also irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion.

You are introducing extraneous variables. They may be very relevant if this were an actuarial study, but it isn't.
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 Tue Aug 22nd 2017, 05:42 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