Red Shift: Z-scores and Probabilities. Take a deep breath.

[TruthIsAll]

This is another state exit poll analysis. The chances are even
more remote then previously calculated. Probabilities are
calculated based on various Z-score thresholds, rather than
the MoE.

The probability of at least N states exceeding a given Z-score
(number of standard deviations from the mean) is based on the
number and magnitude of Bush exit poll deviations from the
recorded vote.

The Z-score is a function of: exit poll sample size, Kerry and
Bush exit poll percentages, and the Bush deviation from exit
poll to the vote.

The standard deviation for a polling n-sample size is:
Stdev = Sqrt (P*Q/n), where
n    = state exit poll sample-size
P    = Kerry poll percentage 
Q    = 1-P = Bush poll percentage

The Z-score is simply:
Z = Bush deviation/Stdev

Using Florida as an example:
n= 2846
P= .5 (assume a polling dead heat)
Q= .5

Stdev = .00937 = Sqrt (.5*.5/2846) = .5/53.3479

The Bush vote deviation from the FL exit poll was 2.46%, so
Z = 2.63 = .0246/.00937

Using Excel, the probability Pr1 of the Bush FL deviation is: 
Pr1 = 1 - NORMSDIST(Z)  (not NORMDIST) 
Pr1 = 1 - NORMSDIST(2.63) = .0043 or 1 in 231 	

The FL exit poll margin of error is: 
MoE = 1.84% = 1.96 * Stdev = 1.96* .00937


   Z     Probability
1.00 .1587 (68% confidence level)
1.96 .0250 (95% confidence level)
2.00 .0228
2.33 .0099
2.58 .0049 (99% confidence level)
3.00 .0012

Let PrN = probability (Z>=X) in at least N states. 
PrN = Prob (N>=Z) = 1- BINOMDIST (N-1, 50, Pr1, TRUE)

Z-scores for Bush exceeded:
1) 2.20 standard deviations in N = 16 states
2) 2.60 standard deviations in N = 10 states
3) 3.35 standard deviations in N = 4 states
4) 3.75 standard deviations in N = 3 states
3) 4.10 standard deviations in N = 2 states

Here are the corresponding probabilities:

N     Z          Pr1          Pr (N>=Z)	

16	2.20	1 in 72         1 in 160,000 trillion	
10	2.60	    216  	  23 trillion	
4	3.35	   2475	         165 million	
3	3.75	  11307	         74 million	
2	4.10	  48382	         1.9 million	


Here are the individual Z-scores and probabilities for each
state.

N	St	Favor	 Z	Pr1

1	NH	Bush	4.16	1 in 63547
2	NY	Bush	4.10	48382
3	SC	Bush	3.75	11307
4	NC	Bush	3.35	2475
5	VT	Bush	2.95	628

6	OH	Bush	2.94	602
7	PA	Bush	2.89	521
8	MN	Bush	2.67	263
9	FL	Bush	2.63	231
10	DE	Bush	2.60	216

11	AK	Bush	2.44	138
12	MA	Bush	2.38	114
13	NJ	Bush	2.36	108
14	NE	Bush	2.33	102
15	RI	Bush	2.23	77

16	AL	Bush	2.20	72
17	CT	Bush	1.94	38
18	MS	Bush	1.88	33
19	NV	Bush	1.83	30
20	UT	Bush	1.77	26

21	VA	Bush	1.75	25
22	CO	Bush	1.73	24
23	NM	Bush	1.70	23
24	AR	Bush	1.64	20
25	IL	Bush	1.61	19

26	LA	Bush	1.54	16
27	WV	Bush	1.43	13
28	WA	Bush	1.36	12
29	AZ	Bush	1.36	11
30	WY	Bush	1.33	11

31	ID	Bush	1.32	11
32	GA	Bush	1.21	9
33	IA	Bush	1.13	8
34	MO	Bush	1.07	7
35	DC	Bush	1.02	6

36	IN	Bush	0.94	6
37	MI	Bush	0.81	5
38	MD	Bush	0.50	3
39	KY	Bush	0.50	3
40	CA	Bush	0.46	3

41	ME	Bush	0.32	3
42	OK	Bush	0.24	2
43	WI	Bush	0.01	2

44	MT	Kerry	0.12	2
45	HI	Kerry	0.47	3
46	OR	Kerry	0.49	3
47	KS	Kerry	1.27	10

48	SD	Kerry	1.34	11
49	ND	Kerry	1.35	11
50	TN	Kerry	1.39	12
51	TX	Kerry	1.40	12

					

[NVMojo]

1. good work but it is getting more and more obvious ...

someone fecking rigged this election. How does a President go from a "51% mandate" to a 43% approval rating in less than six months and who the hell are these 9 out of 10 consumers who want to protect the environment yet this last election handed the country over to "slash and burn" corporations??? Liars. All of them.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Prob( Bush Z >1 in 35 states): 1/4500 trillion; Pr (Kerry Z>1 in 5): 91%

		Pr=1-BINOMDIST(N-1,50,1/P,TRUE)		

Prob	  Favor N	   Z	P(Z)=1 in	      Pr(N>=Z)
1.390%	  Bush	16	2.20	72	       1 in 160,000 trillion
0.466%	  Bush	10	2.60	215	             23 trillion
0.040%	  Bush	4	3.35	2475	             165 million
0.009%	  Bush	3	3.75	11307	              74 million
0.002%	  Bush	2	4.10	48382	             1.9 million
					
4.006%	  Bush	21	1.75	25	            600 trillion
15.866%	  Bush	35	1.00	6	           4500 trillion
15.866%	  Kerry	5	1.00	6	           90.90%


Using confidence levels of 95% (as in the previous analysis) 
and 99% for the probability calculations, we have:

95% Confidence (Z=1.96):
2.50%	 Bush	16	1.96	40	      1 in 19 trillion

99% Confidence (Z=2.58):
0.50%	 Bush	10	2.58	202	      1 in 13 trillion

[LatePeriduct]

2. Florida was a nasty surprise...

My friends stumbled onto the case. Voter fraud blamed everywhere, sticky mess.

[The Animator]

3. O.K. all this research is great...

Props to you and whoever else are putting these together. The real question that begs answering in my mind is...

:rant:

What can we do about it? Once an election is over do we as ordinary citizens have any power to remove the President from office? How much more evidence of fraud do we need to make him step down? With Republicans dominating Congress, I sincerly doubt any movment for impeachment will reach a sympathetic ear on the other side of the isle.

However with a 43% approval rating perhaps there are enough ordinary citizens ready to wak up and kick his ass out, like they did in the Ukraine.

Obviously earthshattering proof of clear election fraud won't make a blip in the Mainstream Media, but I could trust that the Daily Show, Keith Olberman, and Bill Maher would be more than happy to get the world out, plus you can never underestimate the power of getting the information out directly to local news outlets, their is at least one talk radio host in my town who would jump on this if he was given enough evidence, and was able to confirmed it with a few high profile research teams to back it up.

Let's also not forget that there are some countries left in the world that still have an independant and objective news media. I would also recommend, if possible, seeking aid from the U.N. (yes, I think it's that bad.) Wouldn't that be a nice welcoming committee for Mr. Bolton's first day at work?

"Sorry Mr. Bolton, but we've just received some disturbing evidence that your President was, if fact, not democratically elected. We no longer recognize your government as legitemate, so on behalf of the United Nations, Go Fuck Yourself. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, we just had it cleaned."

Sorry to dampen the mood here, but don't think I can handle another three and a half yeas of this asshole. I don't want to turn thirty in George W. Bush's Amerika. I realy don't want all the hard work being done here to remain academic in nature, like the 2000 election did. "Yeah sure, he cheated, but what can we do about it? We'll get him in 04'" That's not going to fly for me this time. When the fact finders and number crunchers reach a consensus that we have enough proof to move forward, we needto have a plan of action in place. Grrr... I'm frustrated as hell.

:rant:

I apologize for the preceeding rant, I congratulate and encourage you to continue your research, it's very important work, and we all appreciate it. Somebody's gotta do it, and numbers make me woosy.

[LatePeriduct]

4. John Bolton's ass isn't being confirmed!

They delayed the vote for a full fledged investigation......a revolution is starting to cover the land.

A Velvet Revolution!!!!

We got proof that they purged the voters off the rolls, and Clint Curtis finished the fraud program for Tom Feeney. Just roll out the source code, roll out the numbers, and you have got proof he used it in 2004 to do the rigging.

There's also plenty of proof this bunch of lunatics were behind it all, and funded every operation!

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/CNPMeetsBeforeGOPConventionKirkpatrick.html

"Lauch Faircloth has always been openly opposed to allowing all Americans to vote. Lauch Faircloth has alwasy been openly opposed
to allowing all Americans to vote. He is a leader of CNP, the
Christian reconstructionists who believe only Christians should be allowed to vote. How can a voting machine company have so many executives line up behind a candidate who is opposed to counting all the votes? "

http://chalktalk.typepad.com/chalk_talk/2003/09/diebold_executi.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8616/reconstructionists.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauch_Faircloth

"The corporate officers are as thick as thieves with the Republican hard right religious nut division. For those who have been lucky enough to forget, Senator Faircloth was the protege of Jesse Helms in NC. It looks like the board and the directors were all putting up money for a Faircloth victory when Edwards took that senate seat. I wonder if they conspired to put things right.....?

"Don't just scan over the following list of Diebold's board and officers - look for patterns. Why were they all so set on Faircloth, Voinowhasit and DeWine? This looks too bizarre for words. Did they have some litmus test that required donations to these ultra right wing loonies?"
http://cronus.com/electionfraud

So what are we waiting for??? Get the Grand Jury together get the evidence in place get the formal prosecution rolling......With a still functional judicial system, we can take these fascists down.

[FogerRox]

12. Faircloth is a fuck See the selection of Ken Star and Scaife

for more crap on the crap turd Faircloth

[TruthIsAll]

6. I understand your frustrations...

There are apparently limitless ways of analyzing and displaying the numerical anomalies. I keep posting them to put it on the record for others to use or try to tear apart.

So far, none of my analysis has been refuted, although the naysayers surely have tried.

[LatePeriduct]

7. Here is the latest ploy...

According to James Baker III:

"Certainly, it is easy for us to take these numbers as troubling. But one must not forget, that voter fraud could have skewed the exit poll results. We need to be agressive against voter fraud."

[liam_laddie]

11. J.A. Baker III = SCHMUCK!

It's VOTE-COUNTING fraud, not "voter" fraud, you schmuck!
This emphasis on "voter fraud" is a ploy to centralize registration rolls in one state-controlled (in OH this would be the SoS office) digital database. Easy to purge unwanted voters. Big brother. 1984.
They decide where and who is "officially approved" to vote.
By blaming the individual as source of fraud, they hope to convince
state officials that their plan will guarantee no more fraud. Sure...
We cannot let this come to pass. Call Carter (NOT the Carter Center)
and Conyers and Dr. Pastor. Raise holy hell. We are NOT fooled!
I'm getting more pissed every day!

[torque]

8. I know it's a lot of work TIA...

and sometimes we all wonder if we are getting anywhere. But we are, each and every day more people learn the truth because of your efforts. Each and every day we are reinforced with the irrefutible mathematical facts that the exit polls provide and so we continue with renewed hope and energy. Your work, besides providing the facts, is of value that cannot easily be explained...

As a journeyman software author and database designer/admin I am still astounded daily by the absolutely irrefutible mathematical treasures simple data contains. As a simple human being who cares about what is right and just for all, I'm impressed with your spirit and determination. Most of all I'm grateful you continue to shine the light in dark places when others (not DUers) shirk their individual responsibilities.

We got your back TIA, and truth upon truth, one day soon we will prevail.

Keep making noise!

[kster]

9. kick.n/t

[Melissa G]

10. The Truth Will out! n/t

[intensitymedia]

13. The waterdrops that wear away a mountainside

right on TIA -

I always read your posts first because they represent the inevitability of science ripping open a few dozen new assholes in the rotten 2004 election results.

But there's a continuing feeling I have about it as well: not everyone can understand - let alone fully appreciate - the power of your achievement, which leads me to think that a high level gathering of statisticians, mathematicians, scientists and other experts would be the most fertile audience for the statistical Molotov cocktails you've lobbed into the Mainstream Media's version of the truth.

This is potent stuff you have here - very potent - but its effect is limited to folks who have the intelligence and background to understand it.

I guess my point is: why can't your work be circulated and peer-reviewed by other professionals in and around your field, and gain strength that way? Not even the NY Times is impervious to statistical evidence, however much they might downplay it. And if a conference of statisticians plus a Jimmy Carter here or there all weighed in, your patient and often hilarious analyses could be the waterdrops that wear away the mountainside.

Keep going, keep going -

best,

che