June 23, 2012
Updated: July 5
In any statistical study, the best data must first be collected. The following election fraud analysis is based on the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database.
The data source is the Roper Center Public Opinion Archives. Exit polls are available for 274 state presidential electins, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections and 24 in 1988.
This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes
Exit polls are surveys conducted in selected voting precincts that are chosen to represent the overall state voting population demographic. Voters are randomly selected as they leave the precinct polling booth and asked to complete a survey form indicating 1) who they just voted for, 2) how they voted in the previous election, 3) income range, 4) age group, 5) party-id (Democrat, Republican, Independent), 6) philosophy (liberal, moderate, conservative), and many other questions.
In this analysis we consider the most important question: who did you vote for? Having this information, we calculate the discrepancy between the state exit poll and the recorded vote count.
Note that respondents are not asked to provide personal information. There is no excuse for not releasing exit poll/voting results for each of the 1400+ exit poll precincts. There is no privacy issue.
- Republican presidential vote shares exceeded the corresponding unadjusted exit poll shares in 226 (82.4%) of the 274 state elections for which there is exit poll data. The probability that 226 would red-shift to the Republicans is ZERO. One would normally expect that approximately 137 would shift to the Republicans and 137 to the Democrats.
- Of the 274, there were 55 state elections in which Republicans won the vote and the Democrats won the exit poll. Conversely, the Republicans lost only two elections (Iowa and Minnesota in 2000) in which they won the exit poll. The probability of this occurrence is virtually ZERO. If the elections were fair, the number of flips would be nearly equal.
- The exit poll margin of error (described below) was exceeded in 126 (46%) of the 274 polls. The probability is ZERO. The statistical expectation is that the margin of error (MoE) would be exceeded in 14 polls (5%).
- 123 of the 126 exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded moved to the recorded vote in favor of the Republican (“red shift”). Just 3 moved in favor of the Democrat (“blue shift”). There is a ZERO probability that the one-sided shift was due to chance. It is powerful evidence beyond any doubt of pervasive systemic election fraud.
The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:
Basic Statistics and the True Vote Model
The True Vote Model (TVM) is based on current and previous election votes cast (Census), voter mortality and returning voter turnout. Published National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares were applied to new and returning voters. The TVM closely matched the corresponding unadjusted exit polls in each election. It shows that the exit poll discrepancies were primarily due to implausible and/or impossible adjustments required to force the NEP to match the recorded vote. The exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes by adjusting the implied number of returning voters from the previous election. These adjustments are clearly indicated by the percentage mix of returning voters in the current election..
The bedrock of statistical polling analysis is the Law of Large Numbers. As the number of observations in a survey increases, the average will approach the theoretical mean value. For instance, in coin flipping, as the number of flips increase, the average percentage of heads will approach the theoretical 50% mean value.
The Normal distribution is considered the most prominent probability distribution in statistics (“the bell curve”). It is used throughout statistics, natural sciences, and social sciences as a simple model for complex phenomena. For example, the observational error in an election polling is usually assumed to follow a normal distribution, and uncertainty is computed using this assumption. Note that a normally-distributed variable has a symmetric distribution about its mean.
The Binomial distribution distribution calculates the probability P that a given number of events (successes) would occur in n trials given that each trial has a constant probability p of success. For instance, the probability of flipping heads (a success) is 50%. In a fair election, the probability that the exit poll would flip from the Democrat to the Republican is also 50%.
The Poisson distribution calculates the probability of a series of events in which each event has a very low probability. For instance, there is a 5% (1 in 20) probability that the recorded vote share will differ from the exit poll beyond the MoE.
The Binomial distribution converges towards the Poisson as the number of trials (n) approaches infinity while the product (np) remains fixed (p is the probability). Therefore the Poisson distribution with parameter λ = np can be used as an approximation to the Binomial distribution B(n,p) if n is sufficiently large and p sufficiently small.
The exit poll margin of error is based on the number of respondents and the “cluster effect” (assumed as 0.30). The Margin of Error Calculator illustrates the effects of sample size and poll share on the margin of error and corresponding win probability.
Ohio 2004 presidential election
Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.7% (119,000 vote margin). In the exit poll, 2020 voters were sampled, of whom 1092 voted for Kerry (54.1%) and 924 for Bush (45.7%). There was a 10.6% discrepancy in margin between the poll and the vote. Given the exit poll result, we can calculate the probability that a) Kerry won the election and b) of Bush getting his recorded vote share.
The Ohio exit poll MoE was 2.8%, so there was a 95.4% probability that the True Vote was within 2.8% of Kerry’s 54.1% exit poll share. The probabilities are a) 95.4% that Kerry’s share was between 51.3% and 56.9% and b) 97.5% that Kerry had at least 51.3%. The Normal distribution calculates the probability P that Kerry won Ohio.
P = 99.8% = Normdist (.541,.500,.028/1.96, true)
Bush won Ohio with a 50.8% recorded share – a 5.1% increase (red-shift) over his 45.7% exit poll share. The probability that the 5.1% shift was due to chance is 1 in 4852 (.02%). So which most closely represented how the True Vote: the exit poll or the recorded vote?
1988 presidential election
As indicated above, 24 state exit polls are listed for 1988 on the Roper Center site. These states accounted for 68.7 million (75%) of the 91.6 million national recorded votes. Dukakis led the 24-poll aggregate 51.6-47.3%, but Bush won the corresponding recorded vote by 52.3-46.8%, a 9.8% discrepancy. The exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 11 of the 24 states – all in favor of Bush (see the summary statistics below).
Dukakis also won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 49.8-49.2% – but Bush won by 7 million votes, 53.4-45.6%. According to the U.S. Census, 102.2 million votes were cast and 91.6 million recorded, therefore a minimum of 10.6 million ballots were uncounted. Dukakis had approximately 8 million (75%) of the uncounted votes (see below). Of course, voters whose ballots were uncounted were interviewed by the exit pollsters. That may be one of the reasons why Dukakis won the state and national exit polls and lost the recorded vote.
Calculating the probabilities
Given the state recorded vote, exit poll and margin of error for each of 274 elections, we can calculate the probability of the red shift.
The probability P that 55 of 57 exit polls would flip from the Democrats leading in the exit polls to the Republicans winning the recorded vote is given by the Binomial distribution: P= 1-Binomdist(54,57,.5,true)
P= 1.13E-14 = 0.000000000000011 or 1 in 88 trillion!
The probability that the exit poll margin of error would be exceeded in any given state is 5% or 1 in 20. Therefore, approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls would be expected to exceed the margin of error, 7 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.
The Republicans did better in the recorded vote than in the exit polls in 226 (82.4%) of the 274 elections. The probability of this one-sided red-shift is 3.7E-31 or 1 in 2.7 million trillion trillion.
The MoE was exceeded in 123 exit polls in favor of the Republican – and just 3 for the Democrat. The simple Poisson spreadsheet function calculates the probability P:
P = 5E-106 = Poisson (123, .025*274, false)
P = 1 in 1.8 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
The probability is ZERO. There are 106 places to the right of the decimal!
P = .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000005Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is an important tool for viewing the effects of alternative assumptions on key results from a mathematical model.
In pre-election polls, the margin of error (MoE) is based strictly on the number of respondents. In exit polls, however, a “cluster factor” is added to the calculated MoE. Therefore, the number of states in which the MoE was exceeded in 1988-2008 (and the corresponding probabilities) is a function of the cluster effect.
The MoE was exceeded in 126 of 274 exit polls assuming a 30% “cluster factor” (the base case). Although 30% is the most common estimate, political scientists and statisticians may differ on the appropriate cluster factor to be used in a given exit poll. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis worksheet of various cluster factor assumptions (ranging from 0% to 200%) is displayed in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Poll Spreadsheet Reference. The purpose is to determine the number of exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded over a range of cluster factors.
If there was no cluster effect, the margin of error was exceeded in 157 of 274 exit polls. In the base case (30% cluster), 126 exceeded the MoE.
Note: MoE is the average margin of error for the 6 elections, CF is the cluster factor, N is the number of exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded.
2.5% 0% 157 2.0E-106 ZERO
3.2% 30% 126 8.0E-75 ZERO (base case cluster factor)
3.7% 50% 113 1.4E-62 ZERO
5.0% 100% 76 1.5E-31 ZERO (1 in 7 million trillion trillion)
6.2% 150% 50 2.5E-14 (1 in 40 trillion)
7.0% 180% 35 6.6E-7 ( 1 in 1.5 million)
7.5% 200% 25 1.9E-03 (1 in 500)
Even with extremely conservative cluster factor assumptions, the sensitivity analysis indicates a ZERO probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in the six elections. Were the massive discrepancies due to inferior polling by the most experienced mainstream media exit pollsters in the world? Or are they further mathematical confirmation of systemic election fraud – beyond any doubt?
The one-sided results of the 375,000 state exit poll respondents over the last six presidential elections leads to only one conclusion: the massive exit poll discrepancies cannot be due to faulty polling and is overwhelming evidence that systemic election fraud has favored the Republicans in every election since 1988.
Fraud certainly cost the Democrats at least two elections (2000, 2004) and likely a third (1988). And in the three elections they won, their margin was reduced significantly by election fraud.
To those who say that quoting these impossible probabilities invites derision, that it is overkill, my response is simply this: those are the actual results that the mathematical functions produced based on public data. The mathematical probabilities need to be an integral part of any election discussion or debate and need to be addressed by media pundits and academics.
Media polling pollsters, pundits and academics need to do a comparable scientific analysis of historical exit polls and create their own True Vote models. So-called independent journalists need to discuss the devil in the details of systemic election fraud. They can start by trying to debunk the analysis presented here.
Election.. 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Average
Democrat.. 45.7 43.0 49.3 48.4 48.3 52.9 47.9
Republican 53.4 37.4 40.7 47.9 50.7 45.6 46.0
Unadjusted Aggregate State Exit Polls (weighted by voting population)
Democrat.. 50.3 47.6 52.6 50.8 51.1 58.0 51.7
Republican 48.7 31.7 37.1 44.4 47.5 40.3 41.6
Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Democrat.. 49.8 46.3 52.6 48.5 51.7 61.0 51.7
Republican 49.2 33.5 37.1 46.3 47.0 37.2 41.7
1988-2008 Red-shift Summary (274 exit polls)
The following table lists the
a) Number of states in which the exit poll red-shifted to the Republican,
b) Number of states which red-shifted beyond the margin of error,
c) Probability of n states red-shifting beyond the MoE,
d) Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share,
e) Democratic recorded share,
f) Difference between Democratic exit poll and recorded share.
Year RS >MoE Probability.... Exit Vote Diff
1988* 20. 11... 5.0E-11..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may have won
1992 44.. 26... 2.4E-25..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton landslide
1996 43.. 16... 4.9E-13..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton landslide
2000 34.. 12... 8.7E-09..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore win stolen
2004 40.. 22... 3.5E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry landslide stolen
2008 45.. 36... 2.4E-37..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama landslide denied
Total 226. 123. 5.0E-106.... 51.7 47.9 3.8
* 274 exit polls (24 in 1988, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections)
The Democrats led the 1988-2008 vote shares as measured by:
1) Recorded vote: 47.9-45.9%
2) Exit Pollster (WPE/IMS): 50.8-43.1%
3) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: 51.7-41.6%
4) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.6-41.7%
True Vote Model (method based on previous election returning voters)
5) Method 1: 50.2-43.4% (recorded vote)
6) Method 2: 51.6-42.0% (allocation of uncounted votes)
7) Method 3: 52.5-41.1% (unadjusted exit poll)
8) Method 4: 53.0-40.6% (recursive True Vote)
The Democrats won the exit poll but lost the recorded vote in the following states. The corresponding decline in electoral votes cost the Democrats to lose the 1988, 2000, 2004 elections:
1988 (7): CA IL MD MI NM PA VT
Dukakis’ electoral vote was reduced from 271 in the exit polls to 112 in the recorded vote. The U.S. Vote Census indicated that there were 10.6 million net uncounted votes in 1988. Since only 24 states were exit polled, a proxy equivalent was estimated for each of the other 26 states by allocating 75% of the uncounted votes to Dukakis. The average 3.47% MoE of the 24 exit polls was assumed for each of the 26 states. Four of the 26 flipped to Bush: CO LA MT SD.
The rationale for deriving the estimate is Method 2 of the 1988-2008 True Vote Model in which 75% of uncounted votes were allocated to the Democrat. The resulting 51.6% average Democratic share (see above) exactly matched the unadjusted exit polls (TVM #3). This article by Bob Fitrakis provides evidence that uncounted votes are heavily Democratic.
1992 (10): AK AL AZ FL IN MS NC OK TX VA
Clinton’s EV flipped from from 501 to 370.
1996 (11): AL CO GA IN MS MT NC ND SC SD VA
Clinton’s EV flipped from 464 to 379.
2000 (12):AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA (Gore needed just ONE to win)
Gore’s EV flipped from 382 to 267.
2004 (8): CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA (Kerry would have won if he carried FL or OH)
Kerry’s EV flipped from 349 to 252.
2008 (7): AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE
Obama’s EV flipped from 419 to 365.
Take the Election Fraud Quiz.
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model
This is a summary of 2004-2012 pre-election projections and corresponding recorded votes, exit polls and True Vote Models.
2004 Election Model
Kerry Projected 51.8% (2-party), 337 EV (simulation mean)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.1-47.6%, 337 EV
National Exit Poll: 51.7-47.0%
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 48.3-50.7%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV
2004 Election Model Graphs
State aggregate poll trend
Electoral vote and win probability
Electoral and popular vote
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
National poll trend
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram
Democratic Generic 120-Poll Trend Model: 56.4-41.6%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.4-41.6%
Wikipedia recorded vote: 57.7-41.8%
Adjusted Final National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.2-45.9%
2008 Election Model
Obama Projected: 53.1-44.9%, 365.3 expected EV; 365.8 EV (simulation mean)
State exit poll aggregate: 58.1-40.3%, 420 EV
National Exit Poll: 61.0-37.5%
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.9-45.6%, 365 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
2008 Election Model Graphs
Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares)
Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability
Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram
2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released