RSS

Monthly Archives: January 2012

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.

1988-2008 state and national unadjusted exit polls and recorded votes
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&output=html

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. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV).

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

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 State 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.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV
US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote 55.2%, 380 EV

_______________________________________________________________
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.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on January 11, 2012 in 2000 Election, Media

 

Tags: , , , ,

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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 10, 2012 in Media

 

Tags: ,

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

The True Vote Model (TVM) calculates vote shares and margins based on estimated returning voter mix and National Exit Poll vote shares. Popular vote win probabilities are also displayed for various vote share scenarios (“sensitivity analysis”). The analysis shows that Kerry won all plausible vote share scenarios in Ohio and Florida.

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

Four methods are used to estimate voter turnout based on prior election 1-recorded vote, 2-votes cast, 3-Exit Poll, 4-True Vote and an estimated turnout rate.

New voters = total votes cast in the current election – returning voters

The TVM produces sensitivity analysis (5×5 tables) of vote shares, margins and popular vote win probabilities for a range of returning and new voters. The most likely scenario is in the central cell of the table, the worst case is in the lower left cell, the best case is in the upper right cell. The win probability is a function of the 2-party vote shares and is calculated using the Normal Distribution Function.

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

Ohio
At 7:30pm, Kerry was leading the Ohio exit poll by 52.1-47.9% (1963 respondents). He won the unadjusted exit poll (2020 respondents) by 54.1-45.9%.
At 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (50.9-48.6%) for the SAME 2020 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote. Bush won the recorded vote 50.8-48.7%, a 119,000 vote margin.

Kerry’s Ohio win probability:
Assume 2000 election voters return in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted Ohio exit poll won by Bush (48.5-47.4%).

In the Worst Case scenario, Kerry captures 55.7% of new voters and 9.7% of returning Bush 2000 voters. He wins with 52.2%, a 313,000 vote margin and 97.1% win probability.

In the most likely Base Case scenario, Kerry captures 59.5% of new voters and 11.7% of returning Bush 2000 voters. He wins with a 53.7% share, a 480,000 vote margin and a 99.8% win probability.

Florida 2004

At 8:40pm CNN showed a virtual tie. Of 2846 exit polled, Bush led by 49.8-49.7%.
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2862 respondents) by 50.8-48.0%. But at 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (52.1-47.9%) for the SAME 2862 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote. Bush won by a 381,000 recorded vote margin.

Kerry’s Florida win probability:
Once again, assume that 2000 election voters return in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted Florida exit poll which Gore won by 53.4-43.6%.

In the Worst Case scenario, Kerry captures 52.2% of new voters and 7.5% of returning Bush 2000 voters. Kerry has 53.2% and wins by 569,000 votes with a 99.5% win probability.

In the Base Case scenario, Kerry captures 56.2% of new voters and 9.5% of returning Bush 2000 voters. He has 54.8%, an 800,000 vote margin and 100% win probability.

Note:
Ron Baiman and Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes did a statistical analysis of 49 Ohio 2004 exit poll precincts.

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.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 8, 2012 in 2004 Election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National exit polls vs. recorded votes and National True Vote Model

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&output=html

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

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

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

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 7, 2012 in 2004 Election, 2008 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

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

In 1988 Bush was the de-facto incumbent as Vice President. Dukakis led by 55.0-42.9% in the Oregon exit poll and won the recorded vote by 51.3-46.6%. He also 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% and the national recorded vote by 43.0-37.4%.

In 1996, Clinton was the incumbent. He led Dole 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 aggregate by 50.2-39.8% and 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, Gore won Oregon by 47.0-46.5% and led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.8-44.5%. 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%. Nader had 6% in Oregon and 3% nationwide. Allocating the excess 3% Nader vote, Gore would have won Oregon by approximately 50-47.5%. He had 50.8% in the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate.

The close match between the Gore’s recorded vote, pre-election polls, exit polls and True Vote Model indicates that Oregon was representative of the True National Vote.

In 2004, Bush was the incumbent. Kerry led the state pre-election polls by 48-47% and was projected to win by 51-48%. He led the Oregon pre-election poll by 50-44% and was projected to win by 53.7-45.3%. He won Oregon by 51.3-47.2%, a 3.6% improvement in margin over Gore. Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.1-47.0% but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. Kerry had a 53.6% national share in the True Vote Model – a 10 million vote margin. The model assumptions were 98% turnout of living returning Gore and Bush voters and 12:22am National Exit Poll with 8% of Gore voters defecting to Bush and 10% of Bush voters to Kerry.

Bush improved on his 2000 recorded vote share not only in the battleground states as well as in solidly Democratic New York. But Oregon went against the grain and shifted from Gore to Kerry. Kerry’s Oregon margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s. This was primarily due to Kerry’s 65-13% lead in returning Nader voters and 57-41% edge in new voters. Kerry’s Oregon share was close to his 52% pre-election poll as well as the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.1-47.6%).

Once again, the close match between Kerry’s recorded share (51.3%) and the aggregate of the state exit polls (51.1%) indicated that Oregon represented the True National Vote.

Therefore, we must conclude that the election was stolen in the Battleground states and that Oregon’s vote-by-mail system was virtually fraud-proof.

In 2008, McCain was the de-facto incumbent. Obama led 56-39% in the Oregon pre-election poll and won the state by 56.7-40.4%. He had 58.4% in the post-election survey. The True Vote model indicated 56.0-42.8%. Obama won the national recorded vote by just 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin, but he had 58.0% in the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls and 58% in the True Vote model. 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%.
We can conclude that Oregon’s votes were counted accurately – unlike the other states.

Again, the close match between Obama’s 2008 recorded vote (56.7%), unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (58.0%) and the National True Vote Model (58.0%) indicates that Oregon was representative of the national electorate.

In the 2010 Midterms, Ron Wyden (OR Dem Senate) won re-election with 57%, exactly matching the pre-election polls and Obama’s OR share. But popular progressive Democrats in other states such as WI, IL and PA were all defeated; their recorded vote shares were far below that of Obama, who won each state in a landslide. How come Wyden won handily but other progressives lost in WI, PA, IL? Did it have something to do with Oregon’s unique early voting system (mail and in-person) and it’s mandated hand recounts?

To believe that Oregon’s mail-in/early voting system miscounted votes, one must also believe that Bush did legitimately win all the other battleground states and therefore that 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? Then one would have to conclude that Oregon’s system worked. The states used electronic voting machines, punched cards and levers.

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, according to the Census, 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 300,000 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 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 2004 and 2008. In 2004, final pre-election projections were based on LV polls which understated voter turnout by 6%. Virtually all online political sites displayed LV polls (not RVs) and failed to allocate undecided voters.

Mainstream pollsters allocated 65-90% of undecided voters to Kerry. His projected national LV poll share was 1-2% lower than the projected RV share. In New York and California, pre-election poll projections were a virtual match to the recorded vote-count share. But they were 5-6% below Kerry’s exit polls and True Vote shares. The same LV/RV mismatch occurred in 2008. Obama had a 53% projection based on LV polls but had 57% based on RV national polls after allocating undecided voters.

Voting by mail results in high turnout, so the pre-election polls are RVs by definition. Kerry led by 50-44% in the final poll. After the undecided voter allocation (UVA), he was projected to win by 53-45%, matching the True Vote Model and 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 pre-election RV polls undermine the media’s objective of fooling voters into believing bogus vote counts. The media primes voters before the election with LV-only projections and then covers up the fraud with final exit polls that they always force to match the vote miscounts.

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 48.4% National.
2004 – Bush was President. Kerry had 51.3% in Oregon and 48.3% National.
2008 – Bush was President. Obama had 58.4% in Oregon and 52.9% National.

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 that tell us about the electoral system?

Oregon County Vote Change Correlation

Since Oregon switched to mail-in ballots in 1998, there has been a noticeable decline in the volatility of changes in 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, there was a near-perfect 0.98 correlation between 2000 and 2004 county vote shares and a lower 2.2% standard deviation in percentage vote change. There was an even better 0.99 correlation for 2004 and 2008. along with a very low 1.5% 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 by definition, Oregon’s recorded vote share should have been close to the other battleground states. But it was the only state 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 a system similar to Oregon’s mandated random hand-count of selected precincts. Punch card machines can be rigged to void votes by double and triple-punching the ballots after the polls close – as occurred in Florida 2000. Corrupt election officials are quick to blame “stupid” voters for not properly filling out h the ballots.

Lever machines in NY, CT and PA did not use paper ballots; too few machines are placed in heavily Democratic precincts; defective machines that break down cause voters to leave the precinct; levers were “stuck” for Bush in 2004; lever gears can be shaved. Most important, tabulation of the votes is done on computers.

In NY, Gore, Kerry and Obama each enjoyed a 7% higher late (paper ballot) vote share than they did on Election Day levers. 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 but he had a whopping 59% of the 10 million (paper ballot) votes recorded after Election Day. What are the odds of the 14% discrepancy? It’s like a 10 million sample-size exit poll.

Kerry won new voters by 59-39% and returning Nader voters by 65-13%. In order to believe the recorded vote, 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 12:22am 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. It would be greatly appreciated if interested readers can find flaws in the assumptions, logic or the math and present contrary statistical and/or anecdotal evidence. The analysis should 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 Lever machines.

Readers who believe that vote-by-mail systems are vulnerable to election fraud and/or voter fraud, should lobby state officials to oppose Oregon’s vote-by-mail system and keep their unverifiable voting systems.

Those opposed to 100% paper ballot voting by mail or hand-delivery cite advantages in precinct voting. These include a) voters meeting friends and making new ones, b) taking time off from work to vote, c) projecting a patriotic image by voting in full view, d) looking smart by touching the computer screen, e) exercising their legs while waiting to vote and f) getting free coffee.

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.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

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 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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 1, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags:

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 768 other followers