The Final 2004 National Exit Poll switched 6.7% of Kerry responders to Bush

2004 National Exit Poll Timeline

This data analysis refutes the myth that the early 2004 exit polls were biased for Kerry. The National Exit Poll timeline shows that Kerry had 51% at 4pm (8,349 respondents). His 51% share was constant up to the final 13,660 respondents. He had 51.7% of the 13,660. The exit pollsters had to switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match to the recorded vote.

In 2008, Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents), but he had just a 52.87% recorded share. The pollsters had to reduce Obama’s respondents from 10,873 to 9,430 (13.3%) in order to force the final NEP to match the recorded vote.

Unadjusted State and National Exit Polls
Data Source: Roper Center UConn
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/state_exitpolls.html#.Tr60gD3NltP

This workbook was created using the Roper data.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7
The workbook displays unadjusted state and national exit polls for each presidential election from 1988 to 2008. Individual election worksheets are accessed instantly by clicking the indicated tab at the bottom of the screen. The state exit polls are displayed in the same row as the recorded vote. The national exit poll is calculated from the aggregate (i.e. national) state exit poll shares weighted by votes cast.

The exit pollsters had to essentially switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match to the recorded vote. Assuming Kerry had 51.7% of the 125.7 million (Census) votes cast, he won by nearly 6 million votes. The True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.

11/2/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%

Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 15% 62% 37% 1%
Gore. 39% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 42% 9% 90% 1%
Other 4% 61% 12% 27%

Total 100% 51% 47% 2%


11/2/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents 
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1% 

Vote04 Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17% 59% 39% 2%
Gore. 38% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 41% 9% 90% 1%
Other 4% 65% 13% 22%

Total 100% 50.9% 47.1% 2.0%


11/3/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

Vote04 Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17% 57% 41% 2%
Gore. 39% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 41% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3% 64% 17% 19%

Total 100% 51.2% 47.5% 1.3%


Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents (true sample)
Data Source: Roper Center UConn

Kerry 51.7%; Bush 47.0%

Total Kerry Bush Other
13660 7064 6414 182
Share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%

Vote04  Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 18.4% 57% 42% 1%
Gore. 38.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush. 39.5% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3.75% 64% 17% 19%

Total 100% 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%


11/3/04 1:24pm, Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents (adjusted sample)
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

The Final was forced to match recorded vote by switching approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush. The average within precinct exit poll discrepancy was a nearly identical 6.5%.

Final NEP (forced to match)
Kerry 48.3%; Bush 50.7% 

Final Kerry Bush Other
13660 6593 6930 137
Share 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%

Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17% 54% 45% 1%
Gore. 37% 90% 10% 0%
Bush. 43% 9% 91% 0%
Other 3% 71% 21% 8%

Total 100% 48.5% 51.1% 0.4%

Unadjusted NEP: Gender Demographic
Kerry 51.8%; Bush 47.2%

Gender Mix Kerry Bush Other
Male.. 46.0% 48.0% 51.0% 1.0%
Female 54.0% 55.0% 44.0% 1.0%

Total.. 100% 51.8% 47.2% 1.0%

Final Adjusted (forced to match recorded vote)
Kerry 47.8%; Bush 51.2%

Gender Mix Kerry Bush Other
Male.. 46.0% 44.0% 55.0% 1.0%
Female 54.0% 51.0% 48.0% 1.0%

Total.. 100% 47.8% 51.2% 1.0%

True Vote Model
Kerry 53.5%; Bush 45.1%

Voted04 Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 17.0% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore. 41.5% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0%
Bush. 38.0% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 3.50% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

Total 100 53.5% 45.1% 1.4%


2008
Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents), but just a 52.87% recorded share. The pollsters had to effectively reduce Obama’s respondents from 10873 to 9430 (13.3%) in order to force the final NEP to match the recorded vote. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 58%.

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17836)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

Final NEP (Unadjusted)
Obama 61.0%; McCain 37.2%

Sample Obama McCain Other
17836 10873 6641 322
Share 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%


Final NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
Obama 52.9%; McCain 45.6%

Sample Obama McCain Other
17,836 9,430 8,137 269
Share 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%

Unadjusted National Exit Poll (True Vote)
Obama 58.0%; McCain 40.4%

Voted04 Share Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
Kerry 50.2% 57.1 43.4% 89.0% 9.0% 2.0%
Bush. 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other 5.2% 5.9 4.5% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
DNV.. .... 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%

Total 100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes .... .... 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2%

Final National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded)
Obama 52.9%; McCain 45.6%

Voted04 Share Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
Kerry 42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.0% 2.0%
Bush. 52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other 4.6% 5.3 4.0% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
DNV.. .... 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%

Total 100% 131.5 100% 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%
Votes .... .... 131.5 69.5 60.0 2.0

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Final National Exit Poll – Gender (forced to match recorded)
Obama 52.7%; McCain 45.4%

Gender Mix Obama McCain Other
Male.. 47.0% 49.0% 48.0% 3.0%
Female 53.0% 56.0% 43.0% 1.0%

Total. 100% 52.7% 45.4% 1.9%


 

Obama May Win the True Vote and Still Lose: The 2012 Presidential True Vote Projection Model

The 2012 Presidential True Vote Projection Model

The systemic Election Fraud that Democrats won’t talk about could cause Obama to lose – just like Gore and Kerry did. The unadjusted 2008 State exit polls indicate that Obama had 420 EV and a 58% share – exactly matching the State and National True Vote Model (TVM).

Officially, Obama had 365 EV and a 52.9% recorded share. So he needs at least a 55% True Vote share to break even – if you believe the TVM and the unadjusted exit polls. This model takes a look at how Obama could lose the election even while winning the True Vote with 50-55%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFlQdjlpamdDQVhaRlEyaGh4UXhkVGc#gid=0

The model is a Google Doc workbook consisting of three worksheets:

1) The Main worksheet is used for data entry and displays essential report output, including sensitivity analysis tables, projected state vote shares and electoral votes.

2) The Data sheet is a side-by-side comparison of the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls and corresponding recorded votes.

3) The Model sheet contains vote share calculations for each state based on user input data in the Main sheet. The Main sheet is the only one which can be edited for user input.

Consider these base case scenario assumptions:
Equal 97% turnout of Obama and McCain voters; an 8% net defection of returning Obama voters; 50/50 split of new voters. There are many other combinations which will produce the following vote shares.

1) Assume systemic election fraud: Use the 2008 recorded vote as a basis for calculating returning Obama and McCain voters. Obama has 49.15%, 258 EV and loses by 2.3 million votes.

Assume that 93% of returning Obama voters and 97% of McCain voters turn out. Obama wins 90% of Obama voters while the Republican wins 95% of McCain voters. Obama loses by 615,000 but wins the Electoral Vote by 278-260.

2) Assume zero fraud(it would be a first): Use the 2008 unadjusted exit polls as a basis. Obama has 53.0%, 327 EV and wins by 8.3 million.

Data Input Assumptions
Entered in the Main sheet. The projected state vote shares and electoral votes are based on the following assumptions and displayed at the bottom of Main.

-Enter the state code (i.e. NY) to view the projected state vote shares. Enter NA to view the National aggregate.

-Enter 1 to project vote shares based on the 2008 recorded vote (assumed fraudulent). Leave blank to use the unadjusted exit polls (no fraud).

Optional input:
-increase in total votes cast over the 2008 election. The default is 5%.
-turnout of returning Obama and McCain voters. Default is 97% for each.
-estimated Obama vote shares of returning Obama, McCain, Other and New voters. Republican shares are calculated: 100% – Obama share.
-increment for vote share and turnout sensitivity tables. Defaults are 2%.
-margin of error for calculating popular vote win probabilities. Default is 3%.

Sensitivity Analysis
No model is complete unless it looks at the effects of alternate input assumptions on the resulting numbers. The built-in sensitivity tables display Obama vote shares, margins and popular vote win probabilities over a range of assumptions around the base case user input.

The theoretical expected EV is the sum of the products of the state win probability and corresponding electoral vote and is displayed in the table of Projected State Vote shares, Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities,

Pollsters and pundits never consider election fraud as the cause of exit poll discrepancies. Likely Voter (LV) pre-election projections and Final Exit Polls have proven to be very accurate in matching the recorded vote. The LV polls are subsets of Registered Voter (RV) polls in which many new Democratic voters are excluded due to the Likely Voter Cutoff Model. Final Exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote. It’s a given. It’s standard operating procedure.

The pre-election and exit polls are primarily based on prior election recorded votes which have consistently understated the true Democratic share. From 1988-2008, the Democrats won the 300 state unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. But their recorded margin was just 48-46%, an 8% difference.

Of the 300 state exit polls, nearly 150 exceeded a conservative 3% margin of error. The probability of that is zero. One would normally expect that 15-20 would fall outside the MoE at the 95% confidence level. But that’s not all, approximately 93% of the exit polls which were outside the MoE moved from the Democrat in the poll to the Republican in the vote. Once again, a zero probability.

 

Using True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis to Prove that Kerry won the 2004 Election

Using True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis to Prove that Kerry won the 2004 Election

Richard Charnin

Feb. 8, 2012

It never ends. The media still wants us to believe that Bush won the 2004 election by a 3 million vote margin, 50.7-48.3%. And they still call those who insist that he stole the election “conspiracy nuts”. But they never debunked the overwhelming evidence that the election was a massive fraud. They just besmirch the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls which showed that Kerry won.

The pundits resorted to claims that “the exit polls behaved badly”, “Bush voters were reluctant to be interviewed by the exit pollsters”, “Returning Gore voters lied about their past vote”, “There was no correlation between Vote Swing from 2000 and the 2004 exit poll red-shift”. All were proven false. They have nothing left.

On the contrary, even after inflating exit poll vote shares and voter turnout to benefit Bush, the following True Vote sensitivity analysis shows that Kerry won all plausible scenarios. It’s time for the media to tell the truth. Kerry won a landslide. The election was stolen, just as it was stolen from Gore in 2000.

The Final National Exit Poll on the CNN and NY Times election sites show that Bush was the winner – until one takes a closer look. As we all should know by now, exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote – come hell or high water. The effort and expertise involved in exit poll sample design is effectively a sham; the actual, pristine exit poll results are always adjusted to match the recorded vote. In other words, they always assume zero election fraud. The Democrats won the 1988-2008 presidential exit polls by 52-42%, but just 48-46% in the official recorded vote.

This workbook contains a detailed comparative analysis of the 1988-2008 state and national unadjusted exit polls and recorded votes.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=22

Let’s now review the 2004 Final National Exit Poll (NEP). The Final indicates that 52.6 million (43%) of the 2004 electorate were returning Bush 2000 voters and 45.1 million (37%) were Gore voters. As we have shown numerous times before, this is an impossible scenario. Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Gore had 51.0 million. Approximately 5% (2.5 million) of Bush 2000 voters died, so at most 48 million returned to vote in 2004.

Of course, there is no such thing as 100% turnout; there had to be fewer than 48 million returning Bush voters. Assuming 98% turnout, there were 47 million. But that is 5.6 million less than the 52.6 million indicated in the Final. What does that tell us about the Final National Exit poll? And since the Final was forced to match the recorded vote, what does that tell us about the recorded vote?

The media wants us to believe that 110% of living Bush 2000 voters came to vote in 2004. So where did these mysterious phantom Bush voters come from?

This is where the True Vote Model comes in. Let’s calculate a feasible, plausible number of returning Bush and Gore voters. We estimate equal 98% Bush/Gore living 2000 voter turnout in 2004. The number is based on the 2000 recorded vote, which Gore won by 540,000. There were 6 million uncounted votes in 2000, approximately 75% for Gore, so his True Vote margin was at least 3 million. But we will be conservative in assuming that he won by just 540,000 recorded votes.

The True Vote Model:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

Using the 2000 recorded vote as a basis for returning Bush and Gore voters, and applying the preliminary 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry is the clear winner of the Base Case scenario with 52.2% and a 7.3 million vote margin – with a 97% win probability.

But the naysayers will then insist that Kerry’s preliminary NEP vote shares were too high and that we should use the Final shares listed on CNN. They will insist that Kerry’s 57% share of new voters be reduced to 54% and his share of returning Bush voters reduced from 10% to 9%. We’ll do better than that.

Check the sensitivity tables: in the worst case scenario, Kerry has just 53% of new voters and 8% of Bush voters. Behold! Kerry is still the winner by 3.5 million votes with a 50.7% share and a 83% win probability.

The analysis is conservative in that it uses the 2000 recorded vote as a basis for calculating returning voters. But with 6 million uncounted votes, Gore must have done much better than his recorded 540,000 margin.

So let’s now use the 2000 True Vote (Gore has 50.4% and wins by 4.7 million) as a basis for calculating the 2004 True Vote. The increase in returning Gore voters has the effect of raising Kerry’s True Vote share to 53.6%. He wins the base case scenario by 10.7 million votes with a 99.8% win probability. In the worst case scenario (Kerry has 53% of new voters and 8% of Bush voters) he has a 52.1% share and wins by 7.0 million votes with a 96.8% win probability. Note that Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll of 13660 respondents with a 51.7% share.

The base case assumes an equal 98% turnout of living Bush and Gore voters. Let’s assume that only 90% of Gore voters and 98% of Bush voters return. Kerry is still the winner by 7.9 million with a 52.4% share. He also wins the worst case scenario by 3.8 million with 50.8%.

The absolute worse case scenario assumes a)the 2000 recorded vote as a basis, b) 90% returning Gore live voter turnout in 2004, c) 98% returning Bush voter turnout, d) Kerry captures 8% of returning Bush voters, e) 91% of returning Gore voters and f) 53% of new voters. Kerry still wins by 500,000 votes.

So we have refuted the media myth that Bush won. Let us count the ways:
1. We have shown that the adjustments to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the bogus recorded vote were impossible, since the Final implies that 110% of living Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004.
2. Kerry is a 52.2% winner assuming that 98% Bush and Gore 2000 voters return in proportion to their recorded vote.
3. We have conservatively assumed that Gore won by the 540,000 recorded vote margin, but logically he must have won by at least 3 million when the 6 million uncounted votes are allocated. Given the allocation, Kerry is a 53.6% winner by a 10 million vote landslide.
4. We have shown that Kerry wins all worst case scenarios, even assuming that his vote shares of returning and new voters are lower than the Final National Exit Poll.
5. We have shown that even with a 98-90% Bush/Gore returning voter turnout Kerry is the winner under every scenario.

There are many ways to skin the cat.

For example, this is a detailed Ohio 2004 statistical analysis of 49 exit poll precincts. The study was written by Ron Baiman and Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes.

http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/OH/2004Election/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

The authors write:
Over 40% of Ohio’s exit polled precincts had statistically significant discrepancies. This is over four times the number of expected precincts with significant discrepancy.
• 45.1% (22 of 49) of Ohio’s polled precincts have significant discrepancy when calculations assume that official vote counts most accurately estimate actual vote share, and
• 40.7% (20 of 49) of Ohio’s polled precincts have significant discrepancy when calculated by assuming that exit poll results are a better estimate of real vote share.

Ohio’s significant exit poll discrepancies overwhelmingly over-estimated Kerry’s official vote share:
• Over 35% of precincts had official Kerry vote counts and exit poll share that had less than a 5% chance of occurring. In other words, Kerry official vote share was much smaller than expected given Kerry exit poll share in these precincts, and
• 4% (2) of Ohio’s exit polled precincts had official Bush official vote that had less than a 5% chance of occurring. In these precincts Bush official vote share (assumed to be one minus their Kerry share) was much smaller than expected, given Bush’s exit poll share.

Now let’s see if any media pundits, election analysts or political scientists come forward to refute the evidence of fraud. Let’s see if they can prove that Bush really did win a fair election.

Don’t hold your breath. Job tenure is everything.

 

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

This analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states which voted early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots in 2008. Approximately 30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states where, presumably, election fraud is minimal.

http://richardcharnin.com/EarlyVsElectionDayVoting.htm

In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift) are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would intuitively expect.

The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average 2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average 6.8% red-shift.

For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=26

This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift decreases. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=28

Note that in the above chart, the three points at the extreme right represent CO, WA, OR.

Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7% of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.). Therefore 63% were cast on Election Day which were a combination of DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since approximately 30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on DREs, it follows that nearly 50% of votes cast on Election Day were on unverifiable DREs. No wonder the discrepancies were concentrated on Election Day voting.

Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper ballot) votes? How does the Democratic late vote share compare to the overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since the late votes were cast on paper ballots, the Democrats did much better.
http://richardcharnin.com/2008LateVotes.htm

Proof: there were 121 million votes cast on or before Election Day. Obama had 52.4%, But he had 59.2% of the 10 million late recorded votes.

Here is the takeaway: Vote EARLY on PAPER BALLOTS(mail or hand-delivered, absentee or provisional). Don’t vote ON Election Day VOTING MACHINES.

And for those who question voting by mail or hand-delivered ballots, check out Oregon. It installed a vote-by-mail system in 1998. With proper controls (namely, a mandated hand-count of randomly selected counties and other safeguards), Oregon stands alone, based on various statistical measures of accuracy, among the battleground states. Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates had the lowest exit poll discrepancies?
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/the-oregon-voting-system-statistical-evidence-that-it-works/

 

Et tu, Al Gore?

Updated: Jan. 27, 2012

Et tu, Al Gore?

Watching The Young Turks covering the NH primary last night on Al Gore’s Current TV, I was struck by the comments made by Gore and Jennifer Granholm. Cenk, who appears to be one honest, smart reporter dedicated to the truth, brought up the topic of exit polls. Gore and Granholm immediately reverted to the media canard that they are not to be trusted.

Al Gore KNOWS he won in 2000 and that the exit polls indicated just that in Florida until 16,000 votes were DEDUCTED from Gore’s total in Volusia county. At that point, Fox News called Florida for Bush and the other networks immediately did likewise. Al Gore KNOWS that exit polls are very accurate; his comment was a real letdown to this analyst who has always been a fan.

For Gore and Granholm to dismiss the “unreliable” exit polls, they would also have to dismiss the following 2000 election facts.

Gore beat Bush by 540,000 recorded votes(48.4-47.9%). But he won the aggregate unadjusted state exit polls (56,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.5% – a 6 million vote margin. Coincidentally, according to the Census, there were nearly 6 million uncounted votes (spoiled, provisional, absentee), of which 75-80% were Gore votes. Therefore, uncounted votes account for approximately one half of the 6 million exit poll discrepancy.

Now consider Florida which Bush “won” by 537 recorded votes. But there were nearly 200,000 spoiled ballots, of which 70% were Gore votes – a combination of underpunched, overpunched and “butterfly” ballots. That’s a net loss to Gore of 80,000 votes right there. But how many TOTAL ballots (spoiled, provisional, absentee, etc.) were never counted?

Investigative reporter Greg Palast calculated that spoiled ballots of African-Americans cost Gore 77,000 votes:
http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/

Palast writes:
Here’s how to estimate the effect of spoilage on the election outcome. For fun, let’s take Florida 2000. We know from comparison of census tracts to precincts that 54% of the 179,855 ballots “spoiled” were cast by African-American voters, that is, 97,000 of the total.

Every poll put the Black vote in Florida for Al Gore at over 90%. Reasonably assuming “spoiled” ballots matched the typical racial preferences, Gore lost more than 87,000 votes in the spoilage pile. Less than 10% of the African-American population voted for Mr. Bush, i.e. Bush lost no more than 10,000 votes to spoilage. The net effect: Gore had a plurality of at least 77,000 within the uncounted ballots cast by Black citizens.

OK, then, what about “Non-Black” voters, whose votes made up the remaining 46% of the spoilage pile? Well, frankly, you can ignore these, as these voters split their vote somewhat evenly between Gore and Bush. Sticklers wanting a closer exam would note that Gore probably won a majority of these votes as well. Moreover, the only large group of spoiled votes in a wealthy white county occurred in Palm Beach (due to “butterfly” ballots), a rare, rich white group of strongly Democratic voters.

Gore won the unadjusted Florida exit poll in a landslide 53.4-43.6%. There were 1816 respondents (a 3% margin of error), so there was a 95% probability that Gore’s share was between 50.4% and 56.4% – and a 97.5% probability that his share was at least 50.4%, a 230,000 vote margin. So how do we account for the 230,000 discrepancy from Bush’s 537 recorded vote margin?

Let’s be conservative. We will assume that the uncounted ballots were all spoiled ballots. According to the Census, there were 43,000 Net Uncounted votes (uncounted – stuffed ballots)in Florida.

Since Stuffed ballots is equal to Gross uncounted (200,000 spoiled) less Net uncounted (43,000), there must have been 157,000 stuffed ballots.

Therefore, Gore’s margin was reduced by approximately 80,000 from 200,000 spoiled ballots and another 157,000 from stuffed (presumably Bush) ballots. The 237,000 total is within 7,000 of the 230,000 calculated above. And that is being conservative. Remember, we are assuming that a) Gore’s vote share was 3% lower than his unadjusted 53.4% exit poll share and b) all of the uncounted votes were the result of 200,000 spoiled ballots. We have ignored absentee and provisional ballots – and votes switched or dropped in cyberspace.

President Gore, what is the mission of Current TV? To be truly independent and fact-based, or just another clone of the mainstream media?
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/current-tv-and-election-truth/

President Gore, you won a mini-landslide in 2000:
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/unadjusted-state-exit-polls-indicate-that-al-gore-won-a-mini-landslide-in-2000/


Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Gore Bush Buch Nader Other Total
6,359 6,065 76 523 85 13,108
48.5% 46.3% .6% 4% .6% 100%

Unadjusted Stare Exit Poll Aggregate
Voted'96 Cast Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 19,949 18% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 47,655 43% 87% 10% 3%
Dole... 34,356 31% 7% 91% 2%
Perot... 8,866 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total. 110,825 100% 50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Votes. 110,825 56,277 50,370 4,178

Note: I am including this report and will provide my comments later.

Television’s Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN
By Joan Konner, James Risser, and Ben Wattenberg
January 29, 2001

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.report/cnn.pdf

My initial reaction is that the report is misleading at best. The authors assume that the Florida exit poll (which showed Gore with a significant lead) was incorrect and the recorded vote counts were accurate. They discourage the use of exit polls, claiming the vote counts should effectively stand by themselves.

It is this type of limited hangout, “conventional wisdom”, unquestioning, see-no-evil reporting, which finds fault with scientific exit polls but not with bogus reported vote counts, that provide cover for not just the 2000 stolen election but all the stolen elections which followed.

For example, there is no mention that 200,000 votes were uncounted, the great majority in Democratic minority districts. However, the authors cite the canard that the “early Gore call” discouraged Florida panhandle voters from coming out. This is unsupported by the facts; they had already voted earlier in the day – and were included in the exit poll.

Stay tuned.

 

A Guide to Watching the New Hampshire Primary

A Guide to Watching the New Hampshire Primary

Richard Charnin

Jan. 10, 2011

This is what the media wants you to believe.

First ignore the early exit polls. They will not represent the actual vote counts. The polls will probably show Ron Paul doing very well, but don’t believe them. After all, the experts tell us that it is in the bag for Romney. If Ron Paul was a viable candidate with a unique message the media would not be ignoring him.

Inevitably, as the vote counts come in, Paul’s share will decline. And the early exit polls will converge to the count. This is to be expected. The unadjusted, early polls have been shown to be grossly inaccurate in all presidential elections since 1988. And the pattern has persisted in congressional and primary elections.

Remember the 2008 NH primary?
http://richardcharnin.com/NHBeyondReasonableDoubt.htm
Obama led in all the pre-election and exit polls, but Clinton was the come from behind winner. Recall that Obama won the hand counted precincts by the same 5% margin that Hillary won the machine counts. But since there were many more voting machine precincts than hand-counted paper ballot precincts, Hillary was the clear winner.

In 2008, the unadjusted exit polls were wrong when they indicated that Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share, when his recorded margin was just 9.5 million.

In 2004, the unadjusted exit polls misled us into believing that Kerry was the winner by 5 million votes (51-47%) when it was Bush who was the winner by 3.0 million votes.

In 2000, the unadjusted state exit polls also misled us in showing that Gore was a 50-46% winner by 5-7 million votes – not by his 540,000 recorded margin.

In 1988-2008, 148 out of 300 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the 3.0% margin of error. Of the 148, 138 overstated the Democratic share. Even though the total of all unadjusted exit polls showed that the Democrats won by 51-41%, the recorded vote was 47-45%.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

Why should we believe the unadjusted exit polls? We must trust the media to tell us how people really voted. Systemic election fraud is a myth. If it were true, the media would have reported it, just like they reported on Acorn.

Of course, the voting machines are computers and we know that computers are not just faster than humans, they are much more accurate. That’s because the programmers know how to code algorithms to make 1+1 =2. Even though we cannot view the proprietary code, there is no reason not to accept the Diebold/ES&S machine counts as being accurate. The fact that the code is proprietary does not mean that there is something to hide.

Therefore, at the end of the evening, we can expect that the final exit polls and the vote counts will be congruent. They always are. It’s just standard operating procedure.

The correct, simple election formula is:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit poll + Exit Poll Discrepancy

But the exit polling discrepancy can be considered an estimate of the fraud component:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit Poll + Fraud Factor

Media pundits, pollsters and academics ignore election fraud, implicitly assuming that the Fraud Factor is ZERO – an unscientific, faith-based rationale for adjusting the exit poll to match the recorded vote.

Final Exit Poll = Recorded Vote

 

A True Vote Probability Analysis of a Kerry win in Ohio and Florida

A True Vote Probability Analysis of a Kerry win in Ohio and Florida

Richard Charnin
Jan. 8, 2012

A table of win probabilities has been added to the True Vote Model (TVM).

The TVM is a post-election model which calculates vote shares and margins based on various estimates of returning voters from the prior election. The TVM uses intermediate vote shares of returning and new voters (based on the national exit poll) to determine total vote shares.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

There are four calculation methods which estimate voter turnout from the prior election:
1-recorded vote, 2-votes cast (recorded+uncounted), 3-Exit Poll, 4-True Vote
New voters are simply the difference between returning voters and total votes cast in the current election.

Because of the inherent uncertainty in these estimates, the TVM calculates vote shares over a range of the estimated shares of returning and new voters (scenarios). Two 5×5 tables of resulting vote shares and corresponding vote margins are generated. The most likely base case vote share in the central cell of the table, the worst case share is in the lower left cell, and the best case share is in the upper right cell. This is called a sensitivity analysis of vote share scenarios.

The win probability in a pre-election or exit poll is a function of the 2-party shares and the polling margin of error, calculated by the normal distribution function.

For example, assume a 51-49% vote share split and a 3.0% input margin of error (MoE). The probability of winning a majority of the vote is given by the Excel formula: Win Prob = NORMDIST (.51, .50, .03/1.96, true)
Win Probability = 74.3%

Ohio 2004
Bush won the recorded vote 50.8-48.7%, a 119,000 vote margin.

The probability calculations assume a 3.0% margin of error. In the 25 scenarios, Kerry wins 55.5-63.5% of new voters and 8-12% of returning Bush voters.

The base case (most likely) scenario in the central cell of the table:
Kerry captures 59.5% of new voters and 10% of returning Bush 2000 voters.
Kerry has 51.7%, a 258,000 vote margin. His win probability is 94%.

The best case scenario in the upper right cell:
Kerry captures 63.5% of new voters and 12% of returning Bush 2000 voters.
Kerry has 53.2%, a 427,000 vote margin and 99.5% win probability.

The worst case scenario in the lower left cell:
Kerry captures 55.5% of new voters and 8% of returning Bush 2000 voters.
Kerry has 50.2%, a 90,000 vote margin and 70.6% win probability.

This is a statistical analysis of 49 Ohio 2004 exit poll precincts. The study was written by Ron Baiman and Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes.

http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/OH/2004Election/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

The authors write:
Over 40% of Ohio’s exit polled precincts had statistically significant discrepancies. This is over four times the number of expected precincts with significant discrepancy.
• 45.1% (22 of 49) of Ohio’s polled precincts have significant discrepancy when calculations assume that official vote counts most accurately estimate actual vote share, and
• 40.7% (20 of 49) of Ohio’s polled precincts have significant discrepancy when calculated by assuming that exit poll results are a better estimate of real vote share.

Ohio’s significant exit poll discrepancies overwhelmingly over-estimated Kerry’s official vote share:
• Over 35% of precincts had official Kerry vote counts and exit poll share that had less than a 5% chance of occurring. In other words, Kerry official vote share was much smaller than expected given Kerry exit poll share in these precincts, and
• 4% (2) of Ohio’s exit polled precincts had official Bush official vote that had less than a 5% chance of occurring. In these precincts Bush official vote share (assumed to be one minus their Kerry share) was much smaller than expected, given Bush’s exit poll share.

Florida 2004
Bush won the recorded vote 52.1-47.1%, a 381,000 vote margin.

Now let’s calculate Kerry’s probability of winning over a range of scenarios:
He wins 52.2-60.2% of new voters and 8-12% of returning Bush voters. Assume the same calculation method (returning voters are based on the 2000 exit poll).

Base Case: Kerry has 52.3%, 427,000 margin and 97.2% win probability.
Best Case: Kerry has 54.0%, 678,000 margin and 99.99% win probability.
Worst Case: Kerry has 50.6%, 176,000 margin and 78.5% win probability.

National 2004
Bush won the recorded vote: 50.7-48.3%, a 3.0 million vote margin.

Kerry’s vote share scenarios:
Share of new voters: 53-61%. Share of returning Bush voters: 8-12%.

Base Case: Kerry has 52.9%, 9.0 million margin and 99.1% win probability.
Best Case: Kerry has 54.4%, 12.8 million margin and 100.0% win probability.
Worst Case: Kerry has 51.4%, 5.3 million margin and 91.9% win probability.

 

How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote

How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote

Richard Charnin

Jan. 6, 2011

This is a quick summary of the changes that were made to the unadjusted, pristine exit polls in order to force them to match the recorded vote. View the data analysis by clicking the link to the 1988-2008 Unadjusted and recorded state and national presidential votes below.

2004
Table 1A is the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
Table 3A is the adjusted Final NEP Gender crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Kerry 47.8%).

Table 4A is the unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2000′ crosstab (3182 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
Table 5A is the adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2000′ crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Kerry 48.3%).

Table 6A is the True Vote Model. Kerry had 53.3%.
Kerry had 51.1% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76192 respondents).

Based on the 3182 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2000:
1- The unadjusted 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 47.8%, Bush 48.4%, Other 3.8%.
2- The Final 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 44.6%, Bush 51.8%, Other 3.6%.

But Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 and had 50.8% in the unadjusted exit poll. Therefore, it is likely that the unadjusted 2004 exit poll understated Kerry’s True Vote share by nearly 2%.

2008
Table 3 is the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents). Obama had 61.0%.
Table 7A is the adjusted Final NEP Gender crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Obama 52.7%).

Table 4 is the unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2004′ crosstab (4178 respondents). Obama had 58.0%.
Table 12 is the adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2004′ crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Obama 52.9%).

Table 2 is the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82388 respondents). Obama had 58.1%.

Table 7 is the True Vote Model. Obama had 58.0%.

Based on the 4178 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2004:
1- The unadjusted 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 50.2%, Bush 44.6%, Other 5.2%.
This is close to the unadjusted 2004 NEP (Kerry 51.7%), but the 3rd party (Other) recorded share was 1.0%, a 4.2% discrepancy from the implied share.

2- The Final 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 42.3%, Bush 52.6%, Other 4.6%.
This is far from both the unadjusted and Final 2004 NEP (Kerry 48.3%). The discrepancy is due to the Final 2008 NEP forced match to the recorded vote.

National Exit Poll Timeline
This refutes the myth that early exit polls were biased to Kerry. He led from 4pm with 51% (8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%). The exit pollsters had to switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match to the recorded vote. Given his 51.7% share of 125.7 million votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes. But the True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.

11/3/04 1:24pm, Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
Adjusted Sample: Kerry 48% (6,557); Bush 51% (6,966)
Forced to match recorded vote by switching approximately 507 (7.2%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush.
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
Sample Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/cf/action/catalog/abstract.cfm?label=&keyword=USMI2004-NATELEC&fromDate=&toDate=&organization=Any&type=&keywordOptions=1&start=1&id=&exclude=&excludeOptions=1&topic=Any&sortBy=DESC&archno=USMI2004-NATELEC&abstract=abstract&x=32&y=9

11/2/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

11/2/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

11/2/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

1988-2008
Unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls and recorded votes:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2004
Final Exit polls (CNN):
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008
Final Exit Polls (CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

 

The Oregon Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works

The Oregon Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2012

This statistical analysis of Oregon’s voting history provides evidence that the vote-by-mail system introduced in 1998 has been a success.
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

Oregon’s recorded vote share closely matched the unadjusted state aggregate exit poll in the last three presidential elections. In 2000, 50.0 for Gore vs. 50.8 nationally; in 2004, 51.3 for Kerry vs. 51.1; in 2008, 56.7 for Obama vs. 58.0

In 2000, Al Gore had a 47.5-47.0% margin in Oregon, a close match to the national recorded vote (Gore 48.4-Bush 47.9). But Nader had 6% in Oregon and 3% nationwide. Allocating the excess 3% OR Nader vote, Gore would have won Oregon by approximately 50-47.5%. He had 50.8% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate.

In 2004, Kerry had a 51.3-47.4% margin in Oregon, compared to Bush’s 50.7-48.3% recorded national share. Kerry’s OR share was close to his 52% share in the OR pre-election poll as well as the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.1-47.6%).

Bush improved on his 2000 recorded vote share not only in the battleground states, but also in solidly Democratic New York. But Oregon went against the grain and shifted from Gore to Kerry. Kerry’s overall Oregon margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s. This was primarily due to Kerry’s 65-13% margin in returning Nader voters and hid 57-41% margin in new voters. The pre-election National, Oregon and Battleground polls, after adjusted for undecided voters, projected that Kerry would win by 51-48%. Post-election state and national exit polls indicated that he won by 4%. The True Vote model indicates that Kerry won by 53.5-45.5% (nearly 10 million votes) assuming a) equal 98% turnout of living returning Gore and Bush voters and b) the 12:22am National Exit Poll defection rates: 8% of Gore voters to Bush and 10% of Bush voters to Kerry.

In 2008, Oregon closely matched the National True Vote and the unadjusted state exit polls. He had 58.0% in the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls, exactly matching his National True Vote share. But Obama had just a 52.9% recorded national share. Obama won the Oregon recorded vote by 56.7-40.4%. He led 56-39% in the Oregon pre-election poll and had 58.4% in the post-election telephone survey. He won the Oregon True Vote Model by 56.0-42.8%.

To believe that Oregon’s mail-in/early voting system miscounted the votes, one must also believe that Bush did in fact legitimately match the other states recorded votes, i.e. the national and state exit polls that showed Kerry winning were all wrong. But what if the exit polls were correct? What if the votes were miscounted in the states that used electronic voting machines, punched cards or levers? Then one would have to conclude that Oregon’s system worked.

In 1988 VP Bush was the de-facto incumbent. Dukakis led by 55.0-42.9% in the Oregon exit poll. He won the state recorded vote 51.3-46.6%. He won the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.0-49.0%. But Bush won the national recorded vote by 53.4-45.6%.

In 1992 Bush was the incumbent. Clinton led Bush by 49.3-25.7% in the Oregon exit poll but won the state recorded vote by just 42.5-32.5%. He led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 45.7-34.8%. He won the national recorded vote by 43.0-37.4%.

In 1996, Clinton was the incumbent. He led by 48.4-37.9% in the Oregon exit poll and won the state by nearly the same margin: 47.2-39.1%. He led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.2-39.8% and won the national recorded vote by nearly the same margin: 49.2-40.7%. His 54.7% two-party Oregon share exactly matched the National recorded share.

In 2000, Clinton was the incumbent. Gore won Oregon by 47.0-46.5% and led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.84-44.5%. He won nationally by nearly the same margin (48.4-47.9%) and had a 48.3% Battleground share. The National True Vote Model indicates that he won by 50-47%.

In 2004, Bush was the incumbent. Kerry led the Oregon pre-election poll by 50-44% and was projected to win by 53.7-45.3%. He won the state by 51.3-47.2%, a 3.6% improvement over Gore. Kerry led the state pre-election polls by 48-47% and was projected to win by 51-48%. He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.1-47.0% but lost to Bush by 50.7-48.3%. Kerry had a 53.3% national share in the True Vote Model – a 10 million vote margin.

In 2008, McCain was the de-facto incumbent. Obama led by 56-39% in the Oregon pre-election poll. He won Oregon by 56.7-40.4%. He had 58.4% in the post-election survey. The True Vote model indicates a 56.0-42.8% split. But he won by just 52.9-45.6% with a 9.5 million recorded vote margin. He had 58.0% in the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls and also had a 58% True Vote share. The triple match is powerful confirming evidence that the vote-by-mail system worked. Obama won the unadjusted National Exit poll (17836 respondents) by a whopping 61-37%.

The National, Oregon and Battleground pre-election projection and post-election exit poll shares closely match. This is a confirmation that Oregon is representative of the National and Battleground electorate. Therefore, we must conclude that the election was stolen in the Battleground states and that Oregon’s vote-by-mail system is virtually fraud-proof.

True Vote Methodology

The analysis tables provide a reasonable approximation of the National, Oregon and Battleground True Vote shares.
Given 2000 and 2004 votes recorded and cast, the True Vote calculation assumes:
1. Kerry and Gore had 75% of the uncounted (cast – recorded) votes
2. Annual 1.25% voter mortality (5% in the four years between elections)
3. Equal 98% turnout of returning 2000 voters in 2004.
4. Equal Gore and Bush returning voter defection rates (they cancel each other).
5. Kerry won returning Nader voters by 65-13% over Bush based on the National Exit Poll.
6. New 2004 voters is the difference between 2004 votes cast and returning 2000 voters.
7. Kerry won new voters by 59-39% nationally. His DNV share in each state is calculated as:

State DNV share = 0.59* (1+state exit poll share – 0.5197)*new voters, where .5197 is Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (national) share. For instance, in NY, Kerry’s share of 1347k DNV is 894k = 0.59*(1+.645-0.5197).

The simplifying assumption is that there was zero net defection of returning Gore and Bush voters (they cancelled each other). But the 12:22am National Exit Poll of 13,047 respondents indicates that 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry and only 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. The 2004 True Vote analysis shown below indicates that Kerry had a 53.7% national share assuming a net 2% defection as opposed to 53.3% assuming zero net defection. See the Recursive True Vote Model.

Kerry True Vote Sensitivity Analysis
Two groups of three tables display the effect of various model input assumptions on Kerry’s vote share. The margin of error is less than 1.5%.

-New Voters and returning Nader/other voters
Three tables display Kerry’s National, Oregon and Battleground True Vote shares over a 54-63% range of new voters and 61-69% of returning Nader/other voters. Kerry wins all worst case scenarios (54% of new voters and 61% of returning Nader voters).

-Returning Gore and Bush Voter Turnout
Three tables display Kerry’s National, Oregon and Battleground vote shares for 91-99% turnout of living former Gore and Bush voters. Kerry wins all worst case turnout scenarios (91% of living Gore voters and 99% of living Bush voters).

Oregon vs. New York and California

National
In 2000, Gore won the recorded vote by 48.4-47.9%. In 2004, although returning Nader voters broke heavily for Kerry by 65-13% and new voters by 59-39%, Bush won by 50.7-48.3%. That is not plausible.

Oregon
Gore won by 47.0-46.5%. With returning Nader and new voters breaking for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin increased to 51.4-47.2%. That is plausible. Kerry led by 52.2-46.3% in the exit pollster telephone poll. That is plausible.

New York
Gore won by 60.2-35.2%. Although returning Nader and new voters broke heavily for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin declined to 58.4-40.1%. That is not plausible. Kerry led by 64.5-34.0% in the exit poll. That is plausible.

California
Gore won by 53.4-41.6%. Although returning Nader and new voters broke heavily for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin declined to 54.3-44.1%. That is not plausible. Kerry led by 60.1-38.6% in the exit poll. That is plausible.

Why did Kerry’s margin increase in Oregon, a battleground state, and decline in strongly Democratic California and New York?
Why was the exit poll so far off in California (11.6 WPE)? It voted 29% on DRE touch screens, 66% on optical scanners and 4% on punch cards.
Why was the exit poll so far off in New York (12.2 WPE)? It voted exclusively on lever machines.
Why were the exit polls so far off (7.5 WPE) in the Battleground states? They voted on punched cards, levers, optical scanners and DREs.

Florida and Ohio

In Florida 2000, there were approximately 185,000 spoiled punch cards (under-punched and over-punched). According to the Census, 43,000 more votes were cast than recorded. Where did the 142,000 extra votes come from? Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

In Florida 2004, approximately 238,000 more votes were recorded than cast. How many were uncounted? Bush won by 380,000 votes.

In Ohio 2004, according to the Census, 143,000 more votes were recorded than cast. Approximately 350,000 were uncounted (see Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by RFK, Jr.) How many votes were switched? Bush won by 119,000 votes.

Oregon’s Pre-Election Polls Uniquely Matched the Recorded and True Vote

Final-week state pre-election polls were virtually all Likely Voter (LV) subsets of the full Registered Voter (RV) samples. Likely Voter subsets largely exclude “new” voters: first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election. The Democrats won ‘new voters’ by an average 14% margin (before Obama’s whopping 44%). Projections that ignore RV polls and focus solely on LV polls will inevitably underestimate the Democratic share, especially in heavy-turnout elections such as record-setting 2004 and 2008. In 2004, the LV polls understated voter turnout by 6%. Gross underestimates would be expected from political sites by displaying only LV polls and failing to allocate undecided voters.

Mainstream pollsters allocated undecided voters to Kerry by 2:1-to-4:1. Kerry’s projected national LV poll share was 1-2% lower than the projected RV share. In New York and California the pre-election poll projections were a virtual match to the recorded vote-count share but 5-6% below Kerry’s exit poll and True Vote shares. The same LV/RV mismatch occurred in 2008. Obama had 53% based on LV polls but a 57% projected share based on RV national polls after allocating undecided voters.

In Oregon, voting by mail results in high turnout and the pre-election polls are RVs by definition. Kerry led by 50-44% in the final poll. After undecided voter allocation (UVA), he was projected to win by 53-45%. The Oregon projection matched the True Vote Model and was within 1.6% of his recorded share.

In the final weeks prior to the 2004 and 2008 elections, national LV polls were displayed on political websites; many did not allocate undecided voters. By virtue of its vote by mail system, Oregon’s RV pre-election polls undermine the media’s objective of forcing voters into believing bogus vote counts. The media primes voters before the election with LV-only projections. Then it covers up the fraud post-election with final “exit polls” that are always forced to match the counts. In 2008 National Election Pool (NEP) consortium did not release the preliminary national and unadjusted state exit polls. Why not?

1988 – 2008: Patterns of Discrepancies Before and After Voting-By-Mail

Before Mail-In Ballots

1988 – Bush was Vice President. Dukakis had 51.3% in Oregon and 45.7% National. He did 3.2% better in the OR exit poll.
1992 – Bush was President. Clinton had 42.5% in Oregon and 43.0% National. He did 5.1% better in the OR exit poll.
1996 – Clinton was President. He had 47.2% in Oregon and 49.2% National. He did 2.2% better in the OR exit poll.

After Mail-In Ballots

2000 – Clinton was President. Gore had 47.0% in Oregon and a 48.4% National share
2004 – Bush was President. Kerry had 51.3% in Oregon and a 48.3% National share
2008 – Bush was President. Obama had 58.4% in Oregon and a 52.9% National share

- Is it just a coincidence that when Clinton was the incumbent, there was just a 1.7% deviation between the Oregon and National vote shares?
- Is it just a coincidence that when Bush was the incumbent, there was a 3.5% deviation between the Oregon and National vote shares?
- If the True Vote Model is correct and Oregon reflects the national electorate, then what does it say about our electoral system?

Oregon County Vote Change Correlation

With the change to mail-in ballots in 1998, there has been a noticeable decline in the volatility of changes in Oregon county vote shares from election to election. Before the switch to mail, there was a 0.93 correlation between 1996 and 2000 county vote share and a 5.0% standard deviation.

After the switch to mail, there was a near-perfect 0.98 correlation between 2000 and 2004 county vote shares and a 2.2% standard deviation in percentage vote change. There was an even better 0.99 correlation for 2004 and 2008 and a very low1.5% standard deviation in percentage vote change. The system is getting better and better.

The statistical analysis makes intuitive sense. Since the battleground states closely mirror the national electorate as a whole, Oregon’s recorded vote share should have been close to that of the other battleground states, but it was the only one that deviated sharply to Kerry. Oregon’s voting system is transparent. Optically scanned machine counts are verified by random hand-counts. Washington has also recently implemented a mail-in system.

Touch screen voting machine precincts avoid paper ballots; votes can be switched locally or at the invisible central tabulators. Optical scanners are a step in the right direction, but the system is ripe for fraud without mandating a random hand-count of selected precincts like they do in Oregon. Punch card machines can void the vote by double and triple-punching after the polls close. As in Florida 2000, election officials are quick to blame “stupid” voters if there are “problems” with the machines.

If they use lever machines, as in NY and PA, there are no paper ballots to verify the vote; too few machines can be placed in heavily Democratic precincts; or bad machines that will likely break down will cause voters to leave the polling booth; the levers can be “stuck”, like they were for Bush in 2004; votes can be switched by the central tabulators; lever gears can be shaved. There are many ways to skin the cat. In NY, Gore, Kerry and Obama each enjoyed a 7% higher late (paper ballot) vote share than they did on Election Day (lever votes). What does that tell us?

Here is an amazing statistic that very few are even aware of: Obama had 52% of the 121 million votes recorded on Election Day and a whopping 59% of the 10 million late (paper ballot) votes. What are the odds of the 7% discrepancy? What is the margin of error in a poll with 10 million respondents?

Since Kerry won new voters by 59-39% and returning Nader voters by 65-13%, to believe the recorded vote shares, you must also believe that returning Gore voters defected to Bush at a much higher rate than Bush voters to Kerry. But according to the National Exit Poll, 10% of Bush and 8% of Gore voters defected.

The above analysis indicates that Oregon’s mail-in system works just fine. But it would be greatly appreciated if interested readers found flaws in the assumptions, logic or the math and presented contrary statistical and/or anecdotal evidence. The analysis can then be forwarded to Oregon’s election officials who may then decide to scrap vote by mail and convert to HAVA-compliant DREs, Optical scanners, Punch cards or Levers. Advise them to recount only those elections in which the vote shares differ by less than .001%.

If you believe the recorded 2004 vote was accurate in the battleground states, then you must also believe that…
1- Bush won a fair election.
2- The electronic and mechanical voting machines accurately counted the votes.
3- There was little or no fraud.
4- Election reform efforts are meaningless.
5- There is nothing wrong with our national voting system.
6- Oregon’s voting system was rigged for Kerry since it was the only battleground state he won that shifted sharply to him from Gore.
7- Pre-election state and national polls that projected Kerry would win by 51-48% after undecided voters were allocated were wrong.
8- Unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls that had Kerry winning by 5-7% were wrong.
9- The Oregon telephone survey that showed Kerry winning a 52.3% share was wrong.
10- Either returning Nader voters defected to Bush and/or he won a majority of new voters and/or more returning Gore voters than Bush voters defected.
11 -The National Exit Poll which had Kerry winning returning Nader voters by 65-13% and new voters by 59-39% were wrong.
12- The Oregon vote must have been padded for Kerry (51.4%) and Obama (56.7%).
13- Election officials in Florida, Ohio, NY and other states did a great job in making sure that the voting machines were not tampered with.
14- A problem with vote by mail is the elimination of exit polls. Oregon needs exit polls even though they are usually wrong.
15- The True Vote Model is flawed since it closely matched the unadjusted National, Oregon and Battleground exit polls.
16- There is nothing wrong with the standard policy of forcing final state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote.
17- Final 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were correct: there were millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive.

If you believe that vote-by-mail systems are vulnerable to election official fraud or voter fraud, then lobby state officials to stop the vote-by-mail trend. Otherwise, fraud-free HAVA-compliant voting systems now working just fine in all the other states will become clones of Oregon and Washington.

Those opposed to mail-in voting cite advantages in voting at the precinct: voters can get to see friends and make new ones, take time off from work, project a patriotic image by voting in full view, look smart by touching the computer screen, exercise their legs while waiting to vote and get some cheap coffee.

 

My 2003 Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×133427

Dear President Carter:

This is a plea: you may be our democracy’s last hope..

As one who of the most trusted and respected Americans, you have monitored elections in other countries. America now needs your help in what many are afraid is an impending election disaster – a fraud of unimaginable proportions.

Computer touch-screen voting machines are about to be installed throughout the nation. They have been determined by Johns Hopkins computer scientists and many others to have built-in software and hardware security flaws which can be exploited in many different ways to defraud voters and change the results of an election.

These machines were used in 2002 Senate elections. Over 22,000 Diebold machines were installed in Georgia. The results of the elections raised eyebrows. The deviations from final polling results were astounding and defied historical precedent. The popular pollster Zogby claimed he had never seen last minute tunarounds like those which occurred in a number of hotly contested Senate and Governor races. And all the turnarounds favored the Republicans. The odds of this happening in a fair election are staggeringly low.

We need your voice to fight for our most important freedom: the right to have our votes counted fairly, with maximum built-in security checks to prevent fraud. Until now, all voting machine software code has been proprietary; there are no redundancy audit checks and paper trails. The potential for fraud cannot be overstated. The 2004 elections will be the most important of our lifetime. This is the first time in history that a large segment of the population is expecting that the Presidential election will be stolen. Chaos will reign if nothing is done. We were in quiet shock in Dec. 2000 when the Supreme Court installed Bush. We will no longer remain quiet.

President Carter, we ask that you provide one final great service to your nation: you must speak out NOW in calling for fraud-proof, audited voting machines. If we cannot have them by the election, then only PAPER BALLOTS will do. The time is growing short; the machines are already bought and paid for; thoughts of greed, not democracy, promotes their rapid installation. We ask that you monitor OUR elections this time, but not before we have FULL confidence that these machines will not be programmed to manipulate votes.

As a nuclear engineer/physicist and humanitarian, no one is more qualified or respected than you are to provide the moral leadership required in getting this issue before the American public at this critical time. Your voice is too powerful to be muffled; you must realize the extent of our fears and the power of your bully pulpit.

President Carter, your voice MUST be heard. This nation will rupture if there is widespread disbelief in the fairness of the election results. We shall never forget the 2000 Presidential election fiasco.

Al Gore should be in the White House today; that is beyond question. We were fooled once; we must not be fooled again.

Yours truly,
An American voter