# Category Archives: Election Myths

## The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

1 The exit poll margin of error is not a function of
a) sample-size, b) 2-party poll share, c) national population size

2 In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote 48-46%. They won both the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 50-46%, b) 51-45%, c) 52-41%

3 In 2004 the percentage of living Bush 2000 voters required to match the recorded vote was
a) 96%, b) 98%, c) 110%

4 In 2000 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 2, b) 4, c) 6 million

5 In 2008, Obama won by 52.9-45.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by
a) 53-45%, b) 58-40%, c) 61-37%

6 In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis by 7 million votes (53.4-45.6%). Dukakis won the National Exit Poll by
a) 49.9-49.1%, b) 50.7-48.3%, c) 51.0-48.0%

7 In 1988 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 6, b) 9, c) 11 million

8 Of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 expected). How many moved in favor of the GOP?
a) 85, b) 105, c) 131

9 Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004, returning Nader voters were 5-1 for Kerry, new voters 3-2 for Kerry. In order for Bush to win, he must have
a) won 30% of returning Gore voters, b) won 90% of returning Bush voters, c) stolen the election.

10 In 2008 Obama won 58% of the state exit poll aggregate. Assuming it was his True Vote, how many True Electoral Votes did he have?
a) 365, b) 395, c) 420

11 What is the probability that 131 of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008 would red-shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error?
a) 1 in 1 million, b) 1 in 1 trillion, c) 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (E-116)

12 In 2000 11 states flipped from Gore in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote. Gore would have won the election if he had won
a) 1 , b) 2, c) 3 of the 11 states

13 In 1988 24 states had exit polls (2/3 of the total recorded vote). Dukakis won the state polls by
a) 50-49%, b) 51-48%, c) 52-47%

14 Exit polls are always adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. The fact that it is standard operating procedure is
a) reported by the corporate media, b) noted by academia, c) statistical proof of election fraud

15 Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore there could not have been more than 47 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is proof that
a) Bush stole the 2004 election, b) it was a clerical error, c) 6 million Bush votes were not recorded in 2000.

16 In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). But he won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.8-44.4% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, indicating that
a) the state exit poll aggregate was outside the margin of error, b) the National poll was within the margin of error, c) the election was stolen, d) all

17 Corporate media websites show that Bush won the 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51-48%, matching the recorded vote. But the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won by 51.0-47.6% (7064-6414 respondents). The discrepancy is proof that
a) the poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, b) Bush stole the election, c) both, d) neither

18 The pervasive difference between the exit polls and the recorded vote in every election is due to
a) inexperienced pollsters, b) Republican reluctance to be polled, c) systemic election fraud

19 In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush by 43-37.5% (Perot had 19.5%). Clinton won the exit poll by 48-32-20%. Bush needed 119% turnout of returning 1988 Bush voters to match the recorded vote. These anomalies were due to
a) bad polling, b) Bush voters refused to be polled, c) Bush tried but failed to steal the election.

20 Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for gauging the effects of
a) various turnout assumptions, b) various vote share assumptions, c) both, d) neither

21 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for
a) predicting the recorded vote, b) electoral vote, c) probability of winning the electoral vote.

22 The expected electoral vote is based on
a) state win probabilities, b) state electoral votes, c) both, d) neither

23 To match the recorded vote, which exit poll cross tab weights and shares are adjusted?
a) when decided, b) voted in prior election, c) party ID, d) gender, e) education, f) income, g) all

24 In 2004 Bush’s final approval rating was 48%. The National Exit Poll had 53%. The change was due to
a) late change in approval, b) different polls, c) forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

25 The True Vote Model is designed to calculate the fraud-free (true) vote. It utilizes exit poll shares and calculates returning voters based on the prior election
a) recorded vote, b) votes cast, c) unadjusted exit poll, d) true vote, e) all

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/true-vote-models/

1c
2c
3c
4c
5c
6a
7c
8c
9c
10c
11c
12a
13c
14c
15a
16c
17c
18c
19c
20c
21c
22c
23g
24c
25e

## Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
August 2, 2013
Updated: Oct. 17, 2013

JFK Blog Post Index: Richard Charnin JFK Blog Posts

It’s all in the numbers. In both cases, we have a series of observations. The JFK witness deaths are from 1964-78; the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls for six elections from 1988-2008. There are data anomalies in the accumulated evidence.

Note: I posted this on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His only response is that I am afraid to have this analysis peer-reviewed. In effect, he has given up the ghost since he himself cannot refute it. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

Intuitively, we feel that there must be an underlying explanation. The first step is to record the data in a spreadsheet. We calculate what we would expect the data to reveal, assuming the Null Hypothesis: No JFK Conspiracy; No substantive Election Fraud. After placing the data in spreadsheet tables, we can proceed to perform a mathematical analysis to see if the observations are reasonable based on statistical expectation.

The problems are similar. In the Election Fraud analysis, we first need to determine the number of state exit polls which fell outside the margin of error for each candidate. We would expect a near equal split. In the JFK analysis, we need to compare the number of unnatural witness deaths to what would normally be expected based on unnatural mortality rates, number of witnesses for the 15 years from 1964-78.

The data parameters are limited in scope.
- JFK: witness universe, unnatural deaths, time period, mortality rate
- Election Fraud: number of elections, exit polls, recorded shares, margin of error

In both studies, we seek to determine the probabilities of these discrepancies:
- JFK: number of unnatural deaths vs. expected
- Election Fraud: number of exit polls exceeding the margin of error vs. expected

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
We need to calculate the discrepancies between each of the 274 exit polls and the corresponding recorded vote to see how many exceeded the calculated margin of error (MoE).

Of the 274 state exit polls, 135 exceeded the MoE, with 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, only 14 exit polls were expected to exceed the MoE. The margin of error is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the adjusted 3.25% MoE is sum of the calculated 2.50% MoE and 30% (0.75) cluster factor.

The probability that 131 of 274 exit polls would exceed the MoE (including a 30% cluster factor) in favor of the GOP is a ridiculous E-116 (116 zeros to the right of the decimal point). That is a big fat ZERO.
But what if the cluster factor was higher than 30%? An increase in the factor would increase the adjusted MoE and therefore the number of polls in which the MoE was exceeded would be lower.

We run the probability calculations for cluster factors ranging from 0-100%. The most likely base case is a 30% cluster and 3.23% average MoE. The margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 elections – a E-83 probability. The probability of exceeding the MoE is 1 in 10,000 in the least likely scenario (200% cluster factor, 7.45% MoE).

```Cluster MoE Polls Prob - Zero : 2.48% 172 E-123 - 30% : 3.23% 135 E-83 - 100% : 4.97% 81 E-35 - 200% : 7.45% 25 E-04 (1 in 10,000)```

The MoE would normally be exceeded in approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls if the elections were fair. The cluster factor scenarios indicate that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the GOP. The probabilities of this red-shift were ZERO in all scenarios. Therefore we can conclude that Election Fraud is systemic beyond any doubt.

US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

JFK Assassination Witnesses

There has been an ongoing controversy over the number of witnesses who died mysteriously ever since the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination. The HSCA claimed that the “universe” of material witnesses was unknowable, therefore the calculation was invalid and was not proof of a conspiracy.

But in fact the number of witnesses was knowable. Approximately 62 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously (38 unnaturally, 27 were homicides). Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (18 unnatural). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) 32 of approximately 600 witnesses called to testify died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

We have a finite universe of witnesses, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, and the unnatural mortality rates. Given this input, we can calculate the expected number of deaths and compare it to the actual number. This is analogous to the actual and expected numbers of exit polls exceeding the margin of error.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.
We calculate a probability matrix of unnatural deaths over a range of material witnesses and number of deaths. We can then analyze the effects of these two key factors on the probability. As the number of witnesses (N) increase for a given number (n) of deaths, so does the probability that n deaths will occur. Conversely, as the number of unnatural witness deaths (n) increase for a given number (N) of witnesses, the probabilities will decrease.

There were at least 83 unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 49 homicides, 24 accidents, 7 suicides and 3 unknown. The probability is E-70 assuming the average weighted unnatural mortality rate (0.000232). It is E-30 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000818).

The sensitivity analysis table of unnatural deaths and corresponding matrix for homicides shows that the probability of unnatural deaths is ZERO in all plausible combination scenarios.

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 83 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 60 trillion.

```1964-1977 Material Witnesses Probabilities of Unnatural Deaths 18 of 552 in the Warren Commission: 7.2E-12 38 of 1100 in 4 investigations: 4.6E-26 83 of 1400 in JFK Calc: E-70```

``` Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 83 Unnatural Deaths for N witnesses N....Probability 1400 2.72E-70 2000 2.41E-58 3000 3.05E-45 4000 2.18E-36 5000 7.39E-30 10000 1.92E-12 20000 1.33E-02   ```
``` Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on August 2, 2013 in Election Myths, JFK   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, 2000 election, 2004 stolen election, conspiracy facts, conspiracy theories, election fraud, Executive Action, exit polls, HSCA, JFK assassination, jfk witness deaths, mathematical proof of election fraud, poisson distribution, probability analysis, state exit polls, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Historical Overview of Election Fraud Analysis 31 Jan Richard Charnin Jan.31, 2013 Updated: Nov.4,2013 Historical Overview In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy. In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001. I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming. The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything. Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares. All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate. The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote. In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush. In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot. In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%. In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000. In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls. The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters. THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES. The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide. Consider the Final National Exit Poll adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs. Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. But the Final adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that he had a 53% approval rating, but just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share. Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID. The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll. In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote. The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied. The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents). In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen. In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unajusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on January 31, 2013 in 2000 Election, 2004 Election, 2008 Election, 2010 Midterms, Senate (WI,IL,PA) & Governor (WI,FL,NJ,OH,PA), 2012 Election, Election Myths, Media, Rebuttals, Response to Lindeman's TruthIsAll FAQ, True Vote Models   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, 2004 election, 2008 election, correlation, election forecasters, election fraud, exit polls, mathematical proof of election fraud, monte carlo simulation, national exit polls, political scientists, probability calculations, PROBABILITY MODELS, unadjusted exit polls, vote share ```
``` Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference 18 Aug Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference Richard Charnin Oct. 30, 2012 Updated: Aug.22, 2013 My comments in bold follow selected paragraphs from Chapter 1 of a new text Exit Polls:Surveying the American Electorate, 1972-2010 by Samuel J. Best, University of Connecticut and Brian S. Krueger, University of Rhode Island. “Despite the unique insights that exit polls can provide about the composition and preferences of voters, they are seldom used after the days immediately following an election. Once media organizations have tapped the exit polls for explanations of electoral outcomes, they often disappear from the public eye. Some scholars may use them over the next year or two to explore the voting behavior of certain subgroups, such as Hispanics, women, or young people, but for the most part they recede into memory, rarely used beyond the next national election.” “Unfortunately, few efforts are made to consider the behavior of voters over time. Historical context typically centers on comparing an election to its most recent predecessor, such as contrasting the 2008 presidential election with the 2004 contest. Rarely are exit poll responses tracked and analyzed over time, leaving many important questions understudied. For example, how have various subgroups in the electorate evolved over time? Have their relative sizes in the active electorate increased or decreased? Have their voting patterns grown increasingly partisan or independent? Which subgroups in the electorate behave similarly through the years?” I wrote Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll in 2010. My new book Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts was published in 2012. The 1988-2008 State and National Presidential Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database is based on the Roper (University of Connecticut) election data archive. Of the 274 state exit polls, 232 red-shifted to the Republican. A total of 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 would be expected at the 95% confidence level). Of the 135 polls, an astounding 131 red-shifted to the Republican, proving systemic election fraud beyond any doubt, The probability is ZERO (E-116). “In the weeks and months that follow, exit polls are used time and again to give meaning to the election results. Newly elected officials rely on them to substantiate policy mandates they claim to have received from voters. Partisan pundits scrutinize them for successful and failed campaign strategies. Even political strategists use them to pinpoint key groups and issues that need to be won over to succeed in future elections.” But what if the final, adjusted exit polls can be shown to be mathematically impossible? In the 1988, 1992, 2004, 2008 elections, the National Exit Poll had to be adjusted to match the recorded vote. This is standard operating procedure – and very few know of it. But in order to conform to the recorded vote in these four elections, there had to be millions more returning Bush voters than were still living. Obviously, an impossibility.Therefore, since the national exit polls were adjusted using impossible numbers, this is absolute proof that the recorded vote must also be impossible. Let’s look at the 2004 numbers. The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million (43% of 122 million recorded votes) returning Bush 2000 voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Applying an estimated 5% voter mortality rate, 48 million Bush 2000 voters were living in 2004. Therefore, Bush needed a 110% turnout (52.6/48) turnout of his living 2000 voters to match the 2004 recorded vote, clearly a physical and mathematical impossibility. Assuming 98% turnout, there were only 47 million returning Bush voters. So where did the 5.6 million phantom voters come from? In fact, Kerry won the unadjusted state and national exit polls. He won the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate of 76,000 respondents by 50.97-47.71%. UNADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS) 13660.. Kerry Bush...Other Sample 7,064 6,414 182 Share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33% UNADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (12:22am vote shares) (returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote) 2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other DNV. 23.1 18.4% 57% 41% 2% Gore 48.2 38.4% 91% 8% 1% Bush 49.7 39.5% 10% 90% 0% Other 4.7 3.70% 64% 17% 19% Share 125.7 100% 51.75% 46.79% 1.46% Votes 125.7 100% 65.07 58.83 1.84 TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares) (returning voters based on 2000 True Vote) 2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other DNV. 22.4 17.8% 57% 41% 2% Gore 52.1 41.4% 91% 8% 1% Bush 47.4 37.7% 10% 90% 0% Other 3.9 3.10% 64% 17% 19% Share 125.7 100% 53.57% 45.07% 1.36% Votes 125.7 100% 67.36 56.67 1.71 ADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (final adjusted vote shares) (impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote) 2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout DNV. 20.8 17.0% 54% 44% 2% - - Gore 45.2 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48.4 93% >Bush 52.6 43.0% 9% 91% 0% 47.9 110% impossible 2000 voters Other 3.7 3.00% 64% 14% 22% 3.8 97% Share 122.3 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% Votes 122.3 100% 59.03 62.04 1.22 “Unfortunately, these same exit poll results are not easily accessible to members of the public interested in dissecting them. After appearing in the next day’s newspapers or on a politically oriented website, they disappear quickly from sight as the election fades in prominence. Eventually, the exit polls are archived at universities where only subscribers are capable of retrieving the data. But nowhere is a complete set of biennial exit poll results available in an easy-to-use format for curious parties.” I created the 1988-2008 state and national presidential exit polls spreadsheet database as an analytical resource using Roper as the data source. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded votes “Second, and far more troublesome for the reputation of the exit polls, the preliminary exit poll results showed a partisan skew. They overstated Bill Clinton’s share of the vote by 2.5 points in the 1992 presidential race and understated George H. W. Bush’s share by 2.5 points, giving the impression that Clinton won by a far greater margin than the officially tabulated votes indicated.” “The raw exit poll data had never been deemed “accurate” in the past prior to being weighted to the actual results, but with the release of early results, observable, but correctable, sampling errors gave the impression that the numbers were off.” One very plausible reason that they were “off” were the 10 million net uncounted votes, the majority from minority precincts that are 90%+ Democratic. The voters were polled, but their votes were not counted. Clinton may have lost millions of other votes due to switched and stuffed ballots. In order to match the 1992 recorded vote, the Final National Exit Poll required that 119% of living Bush 1988 voters turned out in 1992. “VRS claimed the Democratic overstatement in the raw exit poll data was due to partisan differences in the willingness of voters to complete the exit poll, not to a poor selection of precincts or differential response rates by age, race, or gender. Republicans simply refused to participate at the same rates as Democrats, resulting in there being fewer Republicans in the raw exit poll results than there should have been. Mitofsky speculated that the disparity was due to different intensities of support for the candidates—Democratic voters were just more excited about voting for Clinton than Republican voters were about voting for Bush and, as a result, were more motivated to communicate this message by filling out the exit poll questionnaire; others thought it was due to Republicans in general having less confidence in the mass media.” Mitofsky may have “speculated” but there is no evidence that Democrats were more responsive to the exit pollsters. In fact, since 2000 response rates in GOP strongholds were higher than comparable Democratic rates. GOP exit poll and vote shares were positively correlated (.25) to state exit poll response. The average Democratic correlation was -0.26. Bush vote shares increased as response rates increased. In 2004, exit poll precinct data showed that response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts. “Despite the source of the partisan bias in the raw results, the exit polls were able to characterize accurately the voting patterns of demographic subgroups and partisan constituencies once they were weighted to match the official returns. The problem was that the data could not be corrected until the official results began coming in. As a result, the exit polls were susceptible to inaccurate vote projections on election night, especially early in the evening right after poll closings. Nonetheless, the cautious analysts at VRS still called all the races correctly in the 1992 election.” The data could not be corrected until the official votes came in? Or was it that the data could not be rigged until the official votes came in? Of course the cautious analysts called the winner correctly – Clinton won easily – but they did not call the vote shares correctly. Clinton won by a much bigger margin than they said he did. The 2000 Election Debacle “Network competition to call winners culminated in the disastrous 2000 presidential election, when these systems of race projections broke down, and the networks wound up retracting their calls for the winner in Florida and presumptively the election, not once, but twice on election night. The trouble began early in the evening, when VNS alerted the networks around 7:50 p.m. that their statistical models predicted Al Gore the winner in Florida and that the networks should consider calling the state for Gore. This prediction took place even though only 4 percent of the actual vote had been counted and numerous precincts in the Florida panhandle, which happened to be in the central time zone, remained open until 8 p.m.” If the exit polls show a clear winner – as they did in Florida – the fact that just 4% of the votes were recorded is irrelevant. The exit polls were completed by 7:50pm – and panhandle precincts were exit polled throughout the day. Calling the race 10 minutes before the polls closed was of no consequence. Gore won the Florida exit poll (1816 respondents) by a whopping 53.4-43.6%, far beyond the 3% margin of error. “Less than ten minutes later, the decision desks at all the networks and the AP agreed with VNS and announced Gore the winner in Florida. Over the next hour-and-a-half, VNS discovered that vote-count data from Duval County had been entered incorrectly, making Gore appear as if he had many more votes than he actually did. After fixing this error, the statistical models used by VNS and decision desks at all the networks showed the race could no longer be projected safely for either candidate. By 10:18 p.m., all the networks announced they were moving the state back to the undecided category, prompting Jeff Greenfield of CNN to quip, “Oh waiter, one order of crow.”” Of the 185,000 spoiled ballots in Florida, 113,000 were double and triple punched – and Gore’s name was punched on 75% of them. Almost 30,000 overpunched ballots were in Duval County which has a large black population. Could the spoiled ballots have been the cause of the Duval adjustments? “At 2:15 a.m., Fox News called Florida and the presidency for Bush. Within five minutes, NBC, CNN, CBS, and ABC followed suit, announcing that Bush would be the forty-third president of the United States. Meanwhile, VNS and the AP chose not to call the race in Florida a second time, wary of the volatility in the data with the contest that close. During the next couple hours, new errors were discovered. VNS had underestimated the number of votes remaining to be counted. Two counties—Volusia and Brevard—had mistakenly entered their vote totals in favor of Bush. Once these mistakes were corrected, the race narrowed considerably, so much so that Bush’s lead was inside the margin of error.” What about the -16,022 Gore votes in Volusia? The media commentators called it a computer “glitch”. They always do. They never consider that it could have been the result of malicious coding. “An embarrassment early in the evening had turned to a humiliation by the end, leading NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to remark, “We don’t just have egg on our face; we have an omelet.” “Despite the resulting indignation, the exit polls were not responsible for the erroneous second call. In fact, the exit polls were at that point no longer part of the estimation models, having been replaced by actual vote counts—incorrect as they were in some cases—over the course of the evening.” Replaced by actual vote counts? That is what the perpetrators wanted to do all along. The media never reported that Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.5% (5.5 million votes) – way beyond the MoE. Or that he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll 48.5-46.2%, a 2.5 million margin. There were 5.4 million net uncounted votes. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 50.7%. “However, the partisan skew in the measure of aggregate vote choice was higher than in previous elections. The preliminary data overstated the difference in the George W. Bush-John Kerry vote on election night by 5.5 percentage points, predicting a 51- to 48-percent advantage for Kerry rather than a 50.5- to 48-percent win for Bush.” Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.0-47.9%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.5%. “This was the highest error in the preliminary results since the 1992 election and double the error found in the previous two presidential elections. The discrepancy between the preliminary exit poll findings and the final election results was even greater in the competitive states. The exit polls predicted a Kerry victory in four states—Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada—in which Bush won, and overstated Kerry’s support by 11 percentage points in Ohio, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 8 points in Florida.” “Considering the closeness of the election, the exit polls seemed to suggest that Kerry was capable of winning the 2004 election. Political observers used these differences between the preliminary exit polls and the final results to support allegations of vote rigging and fraud in precincts deploying electronic voting machines, particularly in Ohio, where the state’s twenty-seven electoral votes, enough to change the winner of the Electoral College from Bush to Kerry, was decided by 118,775 ballots.” The adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But in the 2000 election, Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes. He needed a 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the 2004 recorded vote. Clearly a physical and mathematical impossibility. “Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania calculated the odds of the exit polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida being as far off the final outcome as they were as 662,000 to 1.” Note: The state exit poll margin of error (MoE) includes a 30% cluster factor. In Pennsylvania, there were 2107 respondents (2.75%). Kerry won the poll by 56.6-42.9%, an 800,000 vote margin. In Ohio, there were 2020 respondents (2.82%). Kerry won the poll by 54.1-45.7%, a 450,000 vote margin. In Florida, there were 2862 respondents (2.38%). Kerry won the poll by 50.8-48.2%, a 200,000 vote margin. “The National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan group of mathematicians and statisticians promoting election reform, found that twenty-two of the forty-nine precincts in Ohio polled by Edison/Mitofsky had reported Kerry vote share results that had less than a 5 percent chance of occurring, based on the state’s exit polls.” “Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., even used the exit polls as the basis for holding congressional hearings on vote irregularities in Ohio. Edison/Mitofsky disputed these charges in a follow-up report, contending that precincts with electronic voting had virtually the same rates of error as those using punch card systems.” “They again attributed the bias to within-precinct error—error due to a systematic bias in the selection of voters within a precinct—and not to bias in the selection of precincts themselves. Bush voters were more likely to refuse to participate in the exit polls than Kerry voters. They hypothesized that the result was a function of the disproportionate numbers of interviewers under age thirty-five who administered the exit poll. Young people had more problems securing participation from voters than older respondents, perhaps because they were correctly perceived to have been more likely to have voted for Kerry.” That is the same old discredited and debunked Reluctant Bush Responder canard that was refuted by the exit pollsters own data which showed that exit poll response was highest in partisan Bush precincts – and in strong Republican states. “Edison/Mitofsky also found that voting patterns within electoral groups were accurate once they were weighted to the official results. They found no evidence that the distribution of presidential vote choices within various demographic groups was biased, despite the vote choice of exit poll respondents overall overstating Democratic support.” The “overstating” of 56 Kerry respondents for every 50 Bush respondents was not due to differential response; it was due to the fact that Kerry won the election with about 53% of the vote. “Since 2004, less controversy has surrounded the exit polls. No serious technical problems have surfaced during the last three elections, enabling the media to prepare analyses of the outcome in a timely manner. Leaks of early wave findings have been contained. The preliminary exit polls have continued to overstate support for Democratic candidates; however, the final vote counts have had such large winning margins that the projected outcomes were no different.” There was less controversy in 2008 only because Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes. But the exit polls indicated that he won by nearly 23 million; the landslide was denied. The level of fraud was equivalent to 2004. Obama won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%. He won the independent True Vote Model with 58.0%, exactly matching the state exit polls. He won the recorded vote by just 52.9-45.6%. How does one explain the massive discrepancy? It was surely not due to differential response. Selection of Precincts “National exit pollsters choose precincts by taking stratified probability samples in each of the states before drawing a national subsample from the state samples. This process involves sorting the precincts in each state into different categories or strata to guarantee that particular groups are represented adequately. To begin, precincts in each state are initially grouped into two strata according to their size to ensure the selection of smaller precincts.” “Within each of these size strata, precincts are categorized by geographic region, usually between three to five regions in each state. For each state geographic region, precincts are ordered by their percentage vote for one of the major political parties in a previous election. Precincts are sampled from these strata with probabilities proportionate to the total votes cast in them in a prior election, so that every precinct has as many chances of being picked by pollsters as it has voters. The samples drawn in each state are then combined, and a national sample of precincts is selected from them using a previous presidential race to determine the relative number of precincts chosen from each state.” Sampling voters in proportion to the recorded vote in prior elections is a persistent source of bias, since the recorded votes were fraudulent and favored the Republicans. So the sampled exit polled precincts were over-weighted for the GOP. “Typically, the total number of precincts selected in the national exit poll is between 250 and 300. Ultimately, the number of precincts chosen represents a tradeoff between sampling error and financial constraints. Research by Edison/Mitofsky has shown that the number of precincts selected has not been responsible for the Democratic overstatements that have continually appeared in the exit polls.” “For example, they found that for the 2004 election the actual distribution of the presidential vote in the precincts used in the exit poll samples did not differ significantly from the actual vote distribution nationwide. In fact, these precincts overstated support for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, but only by 0.4 points, on average, across the states.” Mitofsky believed that the exit poll precinct samples were perfect. But he also hypothesized that 56 Democrats responded for every 50 Republicans – even though his own data indicates that response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts. “Refusal rates, or for that matter miss rates, are not necessarily problematic, as long as the propensity of different groups to participate does not vary. However, if one group is more or less likely than other groups to complete exit surveys, their responses will be over or under-represented, thereby biasing estimates for the overall electorate. For example, the partisan overstatement repeatedly found in the national exit polls over the past several decades appears to be due to the greater willingness of Democratic voters to complete the exit polls, compared with their Republican counterparts. However, once this discrepancy has been corrected by weighting the exit polls to correspond with the actual vote, there has been no evidence that the vote estimates within groups are biased.” Greater Democratic willingness to be exit polled is a myth -not a fact. The exit pollsters own data shows otherwise. In 2000, 2004 and 2008, Republican exit poll shares and vote shares were positively correlated (.25) to state exit poll response. Bush vote shares increased as response rates increased, refuting the Reluctant Republican Responder hypothesis. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. “National exit pollsters account for early/absentee voting by conducting telephone surveys in states where the rates of early voting are highest. VNS first incorporated early/absentee voting in 1996, surveying voters in California, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. By 2008, NEP was conducting telephone surveys in eighteen states, including Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, where the proportions of early voting were so high that no in-person exit polls were conducted on election day.” Early voting data in the 2008 election indicates that Oregon, Washington, and Colorado had the lowest red-shifts. Was it just a coincidence that the states with the highest early voting rates were the ones which most closely matched the unadjusted exit polls? Take the Election Fraud Probability Quiz. 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 55.2%, 380 EV   10 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on August 18, 2012 in Election Myths, Media   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, election fraud, exit polls, national exit polls, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy 05 Apr Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy Richard Charnin April 5, 2012 The pattern should be clear by now. The exit pollsters working for the mainstream media adjust actual exit poll data to match official recorded votes. It happens in every election. And it will again in 2012. It’s like fixing the intelligence to match the policy in Iraq. But very few are aware of the perennial scam. The media won’t tell you. They would only be indicting themselves. The only way to know is to do the research, collect the data, build the models and crunch the numbers. And then post the analysis on the Net, hoping that at least one well-known personality will read it. And then shake things up by discussing Election Fraud the next time they are interviewed in the mainstream media. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes Let’s start with the 2000 election which the Supreme Court handed to Bush. Gore won the national recorded vote by 540,000 (48.4-47.9%). Most people are aware of that. But how many know that he won the unadjusted state exit polls (56,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.5%? That’s a 7 million vote margin. He won the unadjusted 2000 National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents) by 48.5-46.3%. The National Exit Poll is a subset of the state exit polls. In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). The National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) was adjusted to match the recorded vote. But how many realize that Kerry won the unadjusted NEP (the same 13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%? That’s a 6 million vote margin. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate of the state exit polls (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.6%. The Evaluation of Edison-Mitofsky Election System 2004 report was released in Jan. 2005. It was written in response to a number of independent online researchers whose analysis of preliminary state exit polls (as well as anecdotal data) strongly suggested that the election was likely stolen. Media pundits claimed the Report proved Bush won the election fairly – but they ignored the factual data provided in the report. Rather, they parroted the exit pollster’s hypothesis (later dubbed the “reluctant Bush responder”) that the massive 6.5% exit poll discrepancy was due to the differential response rate of voters who were polled: they claimed that 56 Democrats responded for every 50 Republicans. The exit pollsters admitted it was just a theory; they had no evidence for it. In fact, the precinct data showed just the opposite: response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. But now we have the proof: 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database Kerry’s 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share appears to be understating his True Vote since it implies that Bush won in 2000 by 48.4-47.0% – but the exit polls show that Gore led by 50.8-44.5%. How could that be? Surely, disgruntled Gore voters were more likely to return in 2004 than Bush voters. Bush had a 48% approval rating. Click this to view the overwhelming evidence confirming a Kerry landslide. Assuming the 2000 unadjusted exit polls were essentially correct and voters returned proportionately in 2004, then Kerry had at least 53.6% and won by more than 10 million votes, matching the True Vote Model (TVM). Why the 2% TVM deviation from the exit polls? Could it be that exit poll precincts were at least partially weighted to the 2000 recorded vote? In other words, was the sample biased in favor of Bush? Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model. So how did Kerry lose? How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP. An even greater miracle occurred in 1992 for Poppy Bush. In that election, 119% of living Bush 1988 voters turned out. But even that was not enough to steal it from Clinton. Let’s move on to 2008. Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9-45.6% (9.5 million votes). Of course, that is also what the adjusted National Exit Poll indicates. But it’s not how the exit poll respondents said they voted. According to the unadjusted NEP (17,836 respondents), Obama won by 61.0-37.2%. He had 58% in unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate (83,000 respondents). It was a 22 million vote landslide. In order to believe the recorded vote, you must believe that the state and national exit polls (and the True Vote Model) were off by 5 to 8 times the margin of error. Why the massive discrepancies from the recorded vote shares? Once again, the exit pollsters had to force the unadjusted exit polls (state and national) to match the recorded vote. They had to have 60 million returning Bush and 48 million returning Kerry voters. Just like the 2004 Final NEP, it was not just implausible and counter-intuitive, it was mathematically impossible. The pollsters needed a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters in 2008. But Bush won the (bogus) recorded vote by just 3 million – and Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million. In the 1988-2008 presidential elections there were 274 state exit polls, of which 226 red-shifted from the poll to the vote for the Republican and 48 shifted to the Democrat. If the elections were fair, approximately 137 would shift to the Democrat and 137 to the Republican. The probability that 226 would red-shift to the Republican is: P = 3.7E-31 (zero) The margin of error was exceeded in 126 exit polls (15 would normally be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is: P = 8E-75 (zero) The margin of error was exceeded in 123 of the 274 exit polls in favor of GOP and just 3 for the Democrat. The probability P is: P= 5E-106 (zero) The following table summarizes a) the number of state elections which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote, b) the number of states (n) in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican, c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE, d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share, e) the Democratic recorded share, f) the deviation between the exit poll and recorded vote. Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff 1988 20.. 11… 3.5E-20….. 50.3 45.7 4.6 1992 44.. 26… 2.4E-25….. 47.6 43.0 4.6 1996 43.. 16… 4.9E-13….. 52.6 49.3 3.3 2000 34.. 12… 8.7E-09….. 50.8 48.4 2.4 2004 40.. 22… 3.5E-20….. 51.1 48.3 2.8 2008 45.. 36… 2.4E-37….. 58.0 52.9 5.1 Total 226. 123…. 5E-106… 51.88 48.06 3.82 Simulation forecast trends are displayed in the following 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 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 55.2%, 380 EV   1 Comment Posted by Richard Charnin on April 5, 2012 in 2004 Election, Election Myths, Media   ```
``` Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000 21 Nov Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000 Richard Charnin Updated: Jan. 27, 2012 First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes. View the spread sheet:1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential State Exit Polls vs. Recorded Votes. The data source is the Roper site. Officially, Bush won Florida by 537 recorded votes. But it was not even close. Gore won the unadjusted Florida exit poll (1816 respondents) by 53.4-43.6%. Given the 3.0% exit poll margin of error (including a 30% cluster effect), there is a 97.5% probability that Gore won by at least 200,000 votes. There were 185,000 uncounted ballots: 110,000 over-punched and 75,000 under-punched. In addition, thousands of “butterfly” ballots meant for Gore were marked for Buchanan in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County. The recount was aborted in by 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court. But Florida was not unique. The 9.8% margin discrepancy was exceeded in 10 states: TX AL NC TN GA AR ID MD SC FL Gore won the unadjusted exit poll in the following 11 states- but all flipped to Bush in the recorded count. Gore would have won the election with just ONE: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA The True Vote Model is based on 1996 and 2000 votes cast. It was a close match to Gore’s exit poll share. He had a 50.0% True Vote share assuming he had 75% of 8 million returning 1996 voters whose ballots were uncounted and 75% of 6 million uncounted votes in 2000. According to investigative reporter Greg Palast: Greg Palast 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. Note that Palast’s estimate of spoiled ballots does not include thousands of absentee, provisional or stuffed ballots. Or the unknown number of Gore votes dropped or switched to Bush in Cyberspace. The 2000 election theft was a prologue of what was to come. In 2004 Kerry won the unadjusted exit polls by 51.1-47.6% and the True Vote Model by 10 million votes with 53.6%. But he had just a 48.3% recorded share in losing by 3.0 million votes. It was a 13 million margin vote flip. The margin discrepancy exceeded 10% in 15 states: VT DE AK CT SC VA NJ HI NH MS PA UT MN NM OH In 2008 Obama won the unadjusted state exit polls by 58.0-40.3% with a 23 million vote margin – exactly matching the True Vote Model. the exit poll/vote margin discrepancy exceeded 10% in 28 states. Obama had a 52.9% recorded share, officially winning by 9.5 million votes. State and national exit poll discrepancies are calculated in two ways: 1) The exit pollsters provide the average Within Precinct Error (WPE) for each state. But that implies that the exit poll was in error, so let’s refer to it as Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPD). The WPD is the difference between the average exit poll precinct margin and the average precinct recorded vote margin. 2) The unadjusted exit poll discrepancy is the difference between the actual total exit poll respondent margin and the total recorded vote margin. In 2004, according to the weighted aggregate of the state unadjusted exit polls, Kerry won nationally by 51.1-47.6%. His margin based on the average WPD was 52.0-47.0%. Kerry won the NY recorded vote by 58.4-40.1%, an 18.3% margin. The exit pollsters indicated a 12.2% WPD, a 30.5% (64.5-34.0%) exit poll margin. In the unadjusted exit poll, Kerry had 901 (62.05%), Bush 525 (36.15%), Other 26 (1.80%) – a 25.9% unadjusted exit poll margin. There were 1452 respondents, a 3.2% margin of error.   4 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on November 21, 2011 in 2000 Election, Election Myths   Tags: 2000 election, election fraud, exit poll, mathematical proof of election fraud, state exit polls, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Vote Swing vs. Exit Poll Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope, no election fraud” Canard 02 Nov Swing vs. Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope, no election fraud” Canard Richard Charnin April 4, 2012 After the 2004 election, exit poll naysayers claimed that the near-zero correlation between Swing (the change in Bush vote share from 2000 to 2004) and the 2004 Exit Poll Red shift “kills the fraud argument”. The pollsters provided a swing vs. red-shift scatterchart of 1250 precincts. They pointed to the flat (zero slope) regression line as evidence that the election was not fraudulent and implied that a positively sloped regression would have indicated fraud. But they were wrong in using 2000 and 2004 recorded vote data as the baseline in calculating swing. If they had used the 2000 and 2004 unadjusted exit polls, it would have shown that the 2004 election was fraudulent – by their definition. The pollsters used bogus recorded vote data to prove there was no fraud in 2004 – a circular argument if there ever was one. http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/3831/swingshift2zb.jpg There were nearly six million uncounted votes in 2000 and four million in 2004. That fact alone is proof that the True Vote differred from the recorded vote in both elections. Using recorded vote swing as the basis to “prove” that the 2004 election was fraud-free was misleading disinformation. It was meant to cast doubt on the state and national exit polls which indicated that Kerry had 51-52%. However, if unadjusted 2000 and 2004 state exit polls are used as a proxy for the True Vote, there was a strong positive correlation. Swing is now defined as the CHANGE in the 2-party unadjusted state exit poll share from the PREVIOUS election. Red-shift is the DIFFERENCE between the 2-party unadjusted state exit poll and the recorded share in the CURRENT election. In the 2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report, the pollsters “Zero slope = No fraud” argument was refuted their by their own data. The WPE (Within Precinct Error) correlation matrix showed a relatively high 0.48 correlation for 2000-2004. The correlation was a much lower .05 for 1996-2000. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes The E-M WPE correlations table below indicates that the 1988, 1992 and 2004 elections (Bush 1 and 2 were incumbents) were fraudulent. But unadjusted exit poll data shows that the 1996 and 2000 elections were fraudulent as well (Clinton did significantly better than his recorded margin). In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats led the average unadjusted exit polls by a solid 52-42%, but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. Edison-Mitofsky WPE Correlations (2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report) Year 2000 1996 1992 1988 2004 0.48 0.19 0.35 0.30 2000 …… 0.05 0.12 0.23 1996 ….. ……. 0.15 0.26 1992 …. ……. ……. 0.29 1992-2008 SWING VS. RED SHIFT The analysis uses unadjusted 1988-2008 state exit polls. The average (bogus) recorded vote correlation was .01. The average unadjusted exit poll correlation was 0.47. SwingCalc 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Recorded.. 0.09 0.06 0.20 -0.16 -0.14 Exit Poll…. 0.65 0.10 0.57 0.62 0.38 Swing and red shift calculations are shown in these tables and graphs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=20 RECORDED VOTE PREMISE FALLACY: “RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER” AND “FALSE RECALL” The exit pollster’s initial explanation for the discrepancies was that non-response bias skewed the exit polls – the so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr). When that argument was refuted, they tried “Swing vs. Red shift”. Finally, “False Recall” was promoted to explain the impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters implied by the 2004 National Exit Poll. In each case, the recorded votes were used as the baseline, rather than total votes cast. Uncounted votes and an estimate of the True Vote were ignored. To use a fraudulent recorded vote as the basis for calculating swing and then claim that the near-zero correlation “kills the fraud argument” is a logical fallacy. Elections can be fraudulent or fraud-free regardless of the correlation. The scatter graphs below kill the naysayer 2004 Swing/ Red shift “no slope, no fraud” canard. 1988-2008 UNADJUSTED PRESIDENTIAL STATE EXIT POLLS: DEMOCRATS WIN BY 52-42% In the 1988-2008 elections, Democratic presidential candidates did nearly 8% better in unadjusted exit polls (52-42%) than in the recorded vote (48-46%). The discrepancies were due to a combination of uncounted votes and electronic vote switching. The uncounted vote rate trend has declined, but electronic vote switching has more than taken up the slack. FORBIDDEN: RAW PRECINCT EXIT POLL DATA Unfortunately, the National Election Pool (NEP) mainstream media consortium has never released unadjusted precinct exit poll data. Their transparent claim is the need for exit poll respondent confidentiality. It’s a misleading canard; exit poll respondents do not reveal personal information. In their 2004 report, the pollsters provided average Within Precinct Error (WPE) statistics for the 1988-2004 exit polls. That report provided more than enough historical information to hoist the NEP, the pollsters and the naysayers on their own petard. 1992-2004 SWING V. RED SHIFT (WPE) CONSOLIDATED GRAPH True and Recorded Vote Swing v. Red shift (based on 238 state exit polls). http://richardcharnin.com/TrueVoteElectionCalculator_19922004_image001 In 1992 the WPE was 5.4. The correlations: 0.21 Recorded Vote and 0.40 True Vote. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: -0.20. There were nearly 11 million uncounted votes. http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_1992_image001.gif In 1996 the WPE was 1.9. The Recorded Vote correlation was nearly zero (.02). The True Vote correlation was 0.43. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.10. There were nearly 10 million uncounted votes. http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_1996_image001.gif In 2000 the exit poll discrepancies (2.0 WPE) were much lower than in 2004. But the 0.38 Recorded vote correlation was higher than 2004. The True Vote correlation was 0.66. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.57. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_2000_image001.gif In 2004, the WPE was 7.4. Recorded Vote correlation: 0.11. True Vote correlation was 0.56. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.62. There were close to 4 million uncounted votes. http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_2004_image001.gif In 2008, the WPE was at its highest: 10.3. The regression lines diverged, as indicated by the correlation ratios: -0.38 for Recorded Vote vs. 0.42 for the True Vote. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.60. http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_2008_image001.gif In 2004, the average Battleground State Recorded vote correlation was 0.45; it was near zero in Democratic and Republican states. But the exit poll discrepancies (WPE) in the Democratic states were higher than the Battleground states – another refutation of the premise. THE BATTLEGROUND STATES http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_BG_image001.gif Democrat http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_Dem_image001.gif Republican http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_Rep_image001.gif 1988-2008 UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/ This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes -Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (exactly matching the True Vote Model). -Kerry won the state exit polls by 51-47.6% and had 51.7% in the National (2% lower than the True Vote Model). -Gore won the states by 50-45%, a 6 million vote margin. It was a close match to the TVM). -Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in battleground states by 51-47%. He lost the recorded vote by 53-45% (7 million votes). http://richardcharnin.com/SwingVsRedshift1992to2004.htm   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on November 2, 2011 in Election Myths, Rebuttals   Tags: correlation, election fraud, exit polls, red-shift, vote swing ```
``` Election Fraud Lockdown: No Discussion by Politicians, Forecasters and Media Pundits 31 Oct Election Fraud Lockdown: No Discussion by Politicians, Forecasters and Media Pundits Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) Election forecasters measure their performance against the recorded vote. But there is a fundamental flaw in their models: Election Fraud is never mentioned as a factor. The implicit assumption is that the official recorded vote represents the True Vote (i.e. election will be fraud-free). But it cannot be since we know that millions of votes are uncounted in every election. The forecasters disregard the Systemic Election Fraud Factor. Recorded Vote = True Vote + Election Fraud http://www.richardcharnin.com/AcademicandMediaNeverDiscussElectionFraud.htm Forecasters who predicted a Bush win in 2000 and 2004 were only “correct” because of rigged recorded vote counts. Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000; he won the True Vote by 3 million. Kerry lost the recorded vote by 3 million; he won the True Vote by 10 million. The pattern continued in 2008. Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million; he won the True Vote by nearly 23 million. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes In 2004, Kerry had a slight 1% lead in the weighted pre-election state and national polls. After allocating the 6% undecided voters, he was projected to win by 51.4-47.7%. Kerry had 51.7% in both the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (70,000 respondents) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll, a subset of 13,660 respondents. The 2004 Election True Vote Model is based on 2000 votes cast (includes uncounted votes), adjusted for voter mortality and 2000 voter turnout in 2004. Vote shares are based on the 2004 National Exit Poll “Voted 2000” crosstab. The model indicates that Kerry won by 53.2-45.4% (66.9-57.1m). It proves that for Bush to obtain his 3.0m margin in 2004, he would have required 21.5% of returning Gore voters! Bush won the official recorded vote by 50.7-48.4%. The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=31 In 2008, the national aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (81,388 respondents, weighted by voting population) indicated that Obama won by 58.0-40.2%. There is a 97.5% probability that he had at least 57.5% (assuming an unbiased sample). The unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) is a subset of the state polls. Obama won by a massive 61.0-37.2% margin. The probability is 97.5% that he had at least 60% (assuming an unbiased sample). The 2008 True Vote Model is based on 2004 votes cast and the 2008 NEP “Voted 2004” crosstab. It indicates that Obama won by 58.0-40.5%. Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9-45.6%. The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. Prominent election forecasters discussed their methodologies in the International Journal of Forecasting. The articles range from descriptions of diverse election forecasting models, such as those that use political futures markets and historical analysis, to those which evaluate the success of election forecasting in past elections. But none mention the taboo subject of historical election fraud. Are they that clueless? Or are they fearful of jeopardizing their positions by daring to suggest that our “democracy” is a myth? This statement is from the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR): “What is important to note is that at the close of Election Day, exit poll results are weighted to reflect the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did. That is, exit polls are just as important for the information they gather about the voters’ demographics and attitudinal predispositions towards the candidates and the campaign issues as they are for making the projections reported by news organizations on Election Night”. So the purpose of the final exit poll is to get accurate demographic data by matching to the actual vote count. Is this the way to conduct statistical research, by adjusting the results to fit the recorded vote? What if the vote count is corrupted? They never even ask the question. The charade continues unabated. Uncounted votes have steadily declined as percent of total votes cast – from 10.4% in 1988 to 2.7% in 2004. When added to the recorded vote in order to derive total votes cast from 1988-2004, the average Democratic unadjusted exit poll share was within 1% of the adjusted vote. But the 2004 exit poll discrepancies were different in kind and scope from the prior elections; the discrepancies cannot be explained by uncounted votes alone. This article will discuss the following topics: . Election 2004 Forecast Models: The Track Record . The American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) . Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Discrepancies (1988-2004) . Projection and Post-election Models: Monte Carlo Simulation vs. Regression Analysis . Implausible: Returning Gore voters required for Bush’s 3.0m margin in 2004 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Election 2004 Forecast Models: The Track Record The following election forecast models were executed 2-9 months before the 2004 election. All except one forecast that Bush would win the 2-party popular vote with an average 53.9% share. Bush had a 51.2% recorded share, but just 47.5% according to the aggregate unadjusted state exit polls. Furthermore, the estimated popular vote win probabilities were incompatible with the forecast vote shares (they were too low). None of the models forecast the electoral vote. None mentioned the possibility of election fraud. Author Date Pick 2-pty Win Prob Recorded 2-Nov Bush 51.2 Final Beck-Tien 27-Aug Kerry 50.1 50 Abramowitz 31-Jul Bush 53.7 - Campbell 06-Sep Bush 53.8 97 Wlezien 27-Jul Bush 52.9 75 Holbrook 30-Aug Bush 54.5 92 Lockabie 21-May Bush 57.6 92 Norpoth 29-Jan Bush 54.7 95 Compare the above projections to these pre-election poll and exit poll-based models. Election Model (11/01/04) Assumption: Kerry wins 75% of undecided voters Kerry 51.8%; 99.9% win probability Monte Carlo EV Simulation: 4995 wins/5000 trials Final 5 National Polls: Kerry 51.6%; 94.5% win probability 2004 Election Model Graphs National Trend http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image001.png Electoral vote and win probability http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image002.png Electoral and popular vote http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image003.png Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image004.png National Poll Trend http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image008.png Monte Carlo Simulation http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image011.png Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image012.png Unadjusted State Exit Polls (70,000 respondents) State Aggregate: Kerry 52.5%; 99.1% win prob. National Exit Poll (12:22am, 13,047 respondents) NEP 1: Kerry 51.9%; 96.9% win prob 39/41 Gore/Bush weights NEP 2: Kerry 52.9%; 99.8% win prob. 37.6/37.4 adjusted, plausible weights True Vote Model Kerry 53.7%; 99.99% win prob. 12:22am NEP, 125.7m votes cast; 1.22% annual voter mortality, 95% voter turnout The following article describes the methodologies used by a number of 2008 election forecasters. None of the articles discuss historical evidence of election fraud or its likely impact on the forecast. __________________________________________________________________________________ Election Forecasters Preparing for Historic Election Science Daily (June 23, 2008) — Anticipating what is likely to be one of the most interesting elections in modern history, University at Buffalo professor of political science James E. Campbell and Michael S. Lewis-Beck, professor of political science at the University of Iowa, have assembled the insights of prominent election forecasters in a special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting published this month. Each of the articles demonstrates the challenges of election forecasting, according to Campbell, chair of UB’s Department of Political Science, who since 1992 has produced a trial-heat-and-economy forecast of the U.S. presidential election. His forecast uses the second-quarter growth rate in the gross domestic product and results of the trial-heat (preference) poll released by Gallup near Labor Day to predict what percentage of the popular vote will be received by the major party candidates. The articles range from descriptions of diverse election forecasting models, such as those that use political futures markets and historical analysis, to articles that evaluate the success of election forecasting in past elections. Two of the articles address a topic particularly pertinent to the 2008 presidential election: whether open seat and incumbent elections should be treated differently by election forecasters. “One of the biggest misunderstandings about election forecasting is the idea that accurate forecasts must assume that the campaign does not matter,” Campbell explains. “This is not true. First, one of the reasons that forecasts can be accurate is that they are based on measures of the conditions that influence campaigns. So campaign effects are, to a significant degree, predictable. Second, forecasters know that their forecasts are not perfect. Forecasts are based on imperfect measures and may not capture all of the factors affecting a campaign. Some portion of campaign effects is always unpredictable.” Though some campaign effects are unpredictable “the extent of these effects is usually limited,” Campbell points out. In the historic contest between presumptive presidential nomineesBarack Obama and John McCain one thing is certain: “Forecasting this election will be more difficult than usual,” Campbell says: “First, there isn’t an incumbent. Approval ratings and the economy are likely to provide weaker clues to an election’s outcome when the incumbent is not running. Second, Democrats had a very divided nomination contest and it is unclear how lasting the divisions will be. Third, many Republicans are not very enthusiastic about McCain and it is unclear how strong Republican turnout will be for him.” Of the six different forecast models described in the journal articles, only two have a forecast at this point. The other four will have forecasts between late July and Labor Day. The journal articles can be downloaded at sciencedirect.com. Below are brief descriptions: In “U.S. Presidential Election Forecasting: An Introduction” journal co-editors Campbell and Lewis-Beck provide a brief history of the development of the election forecasting field and an overview of the articles in this special issue. In “Forecasting the Presidential Primary Vote: Viability, Ideology and Momentum,” Wayne P. Steger of DePaul University takes on the difficult task of improving on forecasting models of presidential nominations. He focuses on the forecast of the primary vote in contests where the incumbent president is not a candidate, comparing models using information from before the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary to those taking these momentum-inducing events into account. In “It’s About Time: Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model,” Alan I. Abramowitz of Emory University updates his referenda theory-based “time for a change” election forecasting model first published in 1988. Specifically, his model forecasts the two-party division of the national popular vote for the in-party candidate based on presidential approval in June, economic growth in the first half of the election year, and whether the president’s party is seeking more than a second consecutive term in office. In “The Economy and the Presidential Vote: What the Leading Indicators Reveal Well in Advance,” Robert S. Erikson of Columbia University and Christopher Wlezien of Temple University ask what is the preferred economic measure in election forecasting and what is the optimal time before the election to issue a forecast. In “Forecasting Presidential Elections: When to Change the Model?” Michael S. Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa and Charles Tien of Hunter College, CUNY ask whether the addition of variables can genuinely reduce forecasting error, as opposed to merely boosting statistical fit by chance. They explore the evolution of their core model – presidential vote as a function GNP growth and presidential popularity. They compare it to a more complex, “jobs” model they have developed over the years. In “Forecasting Non-Incumbent Presidential Elections: Lessons Learned from the 2000 Election,” Andrew H. Sidman, Maxwell Mak, and Matthew J. Lebo of Stony Brook University use a Bayesian Model Averaging approach to the question of whether economic influences have a muted impact on elections without an incumbent as a candidate. The Sidman team concludes that a discount of economic influences actually weakens general forecasting performance. In “Evaluating U.S. Presidential Election Forecasts and Forecasting Equations,” UB’s Campbell responds to critics of election forecasting by identifying the theoretical foundations of forecasting models and offering a reasonable set of benchmarks for assessing forecast accuracy. Campbell’s analyses of his trial-heat and economy forecasting model and of Abramowitz’s “time for a change” model indicates that it is still at least an open question as to whether models should be revised to reflect more muted referendum effects in open seat or non-incumbent elections. In “Campaign Trial Heats as Election Forecasts: Measurement Error and Bias in 2004 Presidential Campaign Polls,” Mark Pickup of Oxford University and Richard Johnston of theUniversity of Pennsylvania provide an assessment of polls as forecasts. Comparing various sophisticated methods for assessing overall systematic bias in polling on the 2004 U.S.presidential election, Johnston and Pickup show that three polling houses had large and significant biases in their preference polls. In “Prediction Market Accuracy in the Long Run,” Joyce E. Berg, Forrest D. Nelson, and Thomas A. Reitz from the University of Iowa’s Tippie College of Business, compare the presidential election forecasts produced from the Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) to forecasts from an exhaustive body of opinion polls. Their finding is that the IEM is usually more accurate than the polls. In “The Keys to the White House: An Index Forecast for 2008,” Allan J. Lichtman of American University provides an historian’s checklist of 13 conditions that together forecast the presidential contest. These “keys” are a set of “yes or no” questions about how the president’s party has been doing and the circumstances surrounding the election. If fewer than six keys are turned against the in-party, it is predicted to win the election. If six or more keys are turned, the in-party is predicted to lose. Lichtman notes that this rule correctly predicted the winner in every race since 1984. In “The State of Presidential Election Forecasting: The 2004 Experience,” Randall J. Jones, Jr. reviews the accuracy of all of the major approaches used in forecasting the 2004 presidential election. In addition to examining campaign polls, trading markets, and regression models, he examines the records of Delphi expert surveys, bellwether states, and probability models. ___________________________________________________________________________________ The American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) This paragraph from the article says it all: “What is important to note is that at the close of Election Day, exit poll results are weighted to reflect the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did. That is, exit polls are just as important for the information they gather about the voters’ demographics and attitudinal predispositions towards the candidates and the campaign issues as they are for making the projections reported by news organizations on Election Night”. The purpose of the Final exit poll is to get accurate demographic data by matching to the actual vote count? Is this the way to conduct statistical research? What if the vote count is fraudulent? What is their Null Hypothesis? AAPOR refers to challenges facing exit pollsters, but they ignore the challenge of calculating the impact of election fraud on the recorded vote. If the vote counts were accurate, the demographics would be correct. Since the recorded vote counts are bogus, so are the demographics. Assuming that the vote count is pristine is to immediately invalidate the demographics on which it is based. It’s a very simple concept if you really want to do the best analysis possible to get at the truth: It’s Basic Statistics 101.We need to analyze the raw, pristine, unadjusted exit poll data. One would assume that this august group would want to see it. But in their world, corruption is non-existent. They believe that the Recorded Vote is identical to the True Vote. AAPOR also claims that: “An exit poll sample is not representative of the entire electorate until the survey is completed at the end of the day. Different types of voters turn out at different times of the day”. But they don’t mention the fact that Kerry led the exit polls from 4pm (8349 sampled voters) to 730pm (11027) and 1222am (13047) by a steady 51-47%. Or that uncounted votes are 70-80% Democratic and contribute significantly to the exit poll discrepancies. AAPOR parrots the Reluctant Bush Responder (rBr) myth used by exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky: “In recent national and state elections, Republicans have declined to fill out an exit poll questionnaire at a higher rate than Democratic voters, producing a slight Democratic skew”. But the 2004 Final Exit Poll indicated that Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of the 2004 electorate (which was mathematically impossible) as opposed to 37% of Gore voters. And according to the E-M report, the highest exit poll refusal rates were in Democratic states. So much for the rBr myth. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 1988-2004: Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll discrepancies Uncounted Votes have steadily declined as a percent of total votes cast – from 10.4% in 1988 to 2.7% in 2004. When added to the recorded vote in order to derive the total votes cast for the five elections from 1988-2004, the average Democratic unadjusted exit poll share is within 0.1% of the adjusted vote. Comparing the adjusted vote to the aggregate exit poll and recorded vote (2-party exit poll in parenthesis): Year Democrat Recorded Exit Poll Adjusted Average share 46.9% 48.8% (52.7%) 48.9% 1988 Dukakis 45.6 46.8 (47.3) 48.7 1992 Clinton 43.0 45.7 (56.8) 45.7 1996 Clinton 49.2 50.2 (55.8) 51.4 2000 Gore 48.4 49.4 (51.4) 49.7 2004 Kerry 48.3 51.8 (52.3) 49.0 Look at this graph. In each of the last five elections the unadjusted Democratic exit poll share exceeded the recorded vote. But which of the five stands out from the rest? The 2004 exit poll discrepancies were different in kind and scope from those of the prior four elections. Unlike 1988-2000, the 2004 discrepancies cannot be explained by uncounted votes alone. There are some exit poll critics who claim that the large (5.4 WPE) 1992 exit poll discrepancy proves that 2004 exit poll analysis (7.1 WPE) which indicate that the election was stolen are “crap” and “bad science”. After all, they say, there were no allegations of fraud in 1992. They fail to mention (or are unaware of) the fact that in 1992 Clinton beat Bush I by a recorded 43.6-38.0m (43.0-37.4%) but 9.4m votes were uncounted – and 70-80% were Democratic. When the uncounted votes are added, the adjusted vote becomes 50.7-40.3m (45.7-36.4%), which exactly matched Clinton’s unadjusted exit poll. From 1988-2000, after the uncounted adjustment, there was a 0.85% average Democratic exit poll discrepancy and 2.9 WPE. In 2004, after the 3.4m uncounted vote adjustment, there was a 2.8% discrepancy and Bush’s margin was reduced from 3.0m (62.0-59.0) to 1.3m (62.9-61.6). But uncounted votes were only one component of Election Fraud 2004. The Election Calculator Model determined that approximately 5m votes were switched from Kerry to Bush. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Projection and Post-election Models: Monte Carlo Simulation vs. Regression Analysis There are two basic methods used to forecast presidential elections: 1) Projections based on state and national polling trends which forecast the popular and electoral vote, updated frequently right up to the election. 2) Regression models based on historical time-series which forecast the popular vote, executed months before the election. Polling models when adjusted for undecided voters and estimated turnout, are superior to regression models. Models which predicted a Bush win in 2000 and 2004 were technically “correct”; Bush won the recorded vote. But Gore and Kerry won the True vote. Except for the Election Calculator (below), all models assume that elections will be fraud-free. Academics and political scientists create multiple regression models which utilize time-series data as relevant input variables: economic growth, inflation, job growth, interest rates, foreign policy, historical election vote shares, etc. Regression modeling is an interesting theoretical exercise but does not account for the daily events which affect voter psychology. Fraud could conceivably skew regression models and media tracking polls. Statistical analyses provided by Internet bloggers concluded that BushCo stole the 2004 election. Their findings were dismissed by the media as “just another conspiracy theory”. A few “conspiracy fraudsters” were banned after posting on various liberal discussion forums. And even today, the most popular polling sites never discuss election fraud. But the Democrats haven’t raised the issue after two presidential and scores of congressional and gubernatorial elections were stolen, and neither has the media, supposedly the guardian of democracy. Is there anyone who still truly believes that elections are legitimate? There has been much misinformation regarding electoral and popular vote win probability calculations. In the Election Model, the latest state pre-election poll are used to project the vote after adjusting for undecided voters. The model assumes the election is held on the day of the projection. The projections determine the probability of winning each state for input to the simulation. The probability of winning the popular vote is based on the 2-party projected vote share and an estimated margin of error: P = NORMDIST (vote share, 0.50, MoE/1.96, True). The expected electoral vote is the average of all the election trials. The probability of capturing at least 270 electoral votes is a simple ratio of the number of winning trials divided by the total number of trials.   4 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on October 31, 2011 in Election Myths   Tags: election forecasting, election fraud, exit polls, media election fraud lockdown, political scientists, true vote ```
``` An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis Not Required 31 Oct An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis Not Required Richard Charnin Oct. 31, 2011 Updated: Dec 9, 2012 Regardless of the method used for state projections, only the state win probabilities are needed to calculate the expected electoral vote. A simulation or meta-analysis is required to calculate the electoral vote win probability. Calculating the expected electoral vote is a three-step process: 1. Project the 2-party vote share V(i) for each state(i) as the sum of the final pre-election poll share PS(i) and the undecided voter allocation UVA(i): V(i)= PS(i) + UVA(i) 2. Compute the probability of winning each state given the projected share and the margin of error at the 95% confidence level: P(i) = NORMDIST (V(i), 0.5, MoE/1.96, true) 3. Compute the expected electoral vote as the sum of each state’s win probability times its electoral vote: EV = ∑ P(i) * EV(i), for i = 1,51 The most efficient method for projecting the electoral vote win probability is Monte Carlo simulation. This technique is widely used in many diverse applications when an analytical solution is prohibitive. It is the perfect tool for calculating the EV win probability. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model snapshot forecast exactly matched Obama’s 332 Electoral Votes. The model also forecast a 320.7 theoretical (expected) EV and a 320 simulation (mean) EV. In 2008, it was just the opposite. Obama’s 365.3 expected theoretical electoral vote was a near-perfect match to his recorded 365 EV. The simulation mean EV was also a near-perfect 365.8. The snapshot EV forecast was a near-perfect 367. What does this prove? That no more than 500 simulation trials are required to get close to the theoretical forecast EV (it is based strictly on the state win probabilities). The only reason a simulation is required is to calculate the electoral vote win probability (the percentage of winning election trials that exceed 269 EV). A simulation is not required to forecast the EV. It is merely the product sum of the state win probabilities and electoral votes. Election blogs, media pundits and academics develop models for forecasting the recorded vote but do not apply basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in their overly simplistic or complex models. They never mention the systemic election fraud factor. But it is a fact: the recorded vote differs from the True Vote in every election. In each of the 1988-2008 elections, the unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls have differed from the recorded vote. The Democrats won the unadjusted poll average by 52-42% compared to the 48-46% recorded margin. The exit polls confirmed the 1988-2008 True Vote Model in every election. The 2004 Monte Carlo Election Simulation Model calculates 200 election trials using final state pre-election polls and post-election exit polls. 2004 Election Model The 2004 Election Model used a 5000 election trial simulation. The win probability is the percentage of winning election trials. The average electoral vote will approach the theoretical value (the EV summation formula) as the number of trials increase: the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) applies. The average and median EV’s are very close to the theoretical mean; no more than 5000 election trials are required to accurately derive the EV win probability. The model projected that Kerry would have 337 electoral votes with a 99% win probability and a 51.8% two-party vote share. I allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry. Exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky, in their Jan. 2005 Election Evaluation Report, showed an average within precinct discrepancy of 6.5%. This meant that Kerry had 51.5% and 337 electoral votes, exactly matching the Election Model. The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) on the Roper UConn archive website had Kerry winning by 51.0-47.5%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) shows that he won by 51.7-47.0%. Kerry had 53.5% in the post-election True Vote Model – a 67-57 million vote landslide. But it was not enough to overcome the massive fraud which gave Bush his bogus 3.0 million vote “mandate”. The Election Model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five undecided voter (UVA) scenario assumptions. This enables one to view the effects of the UVA factor variable on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Kerry won all scenarios. Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete. Princeton Professor Wang projected that Kerry would win 311 electoral votes with a 98% win probability, exactly matching pollster John Zogby – and closely matching the exit polls. But Wang was incorrect in his post-mortem to suggest that his forecast was “wrong” because Bush won the late undecided vote. All evidence indicates that Kerry easily won the late undecided vote and the historical recorded indicates challengers win undecideds 80% of the time. Based on historic evidence, the challenger is normally expected to win the majority (60-90%) of the undecideds, depending on incumbent job performance. Bush had a 48% approval rating on Election Day. Gallup allocated 90% of undecided voters to Kerry, pollsters Zogby and Harris: 75-80%. The National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry won late undecided voters by a 12% margin over Bush. Wang never considered that the election was stolen. Then again, neither did AAPOR, the media pundits, pollsters, academics or political scientists. But overwhelming statistical and other documented evidence indicates massive election fraud was required for Bush to win. Meta analysis is an unnecessarily complex method and overkill for calculating the expected Electoral Vote; the EV is calculated by the simple summation formula given below. The 2008 Election Model exactly matched Obama’s 365 EV. His win probability was 100% since he won all 5000 election trials. His projected 53.1% share was a close match to the recorded 52.9%. But the Election Model was wrong. It utilized pre-election likely voter (LV) polls which understated Obama’s True Vote. The National registered voter (RV) polls projected 57% which was confirmed by the post-election True Vote Model (58%,420 EV), the unadjusted state exit polls (58%,420 EV) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (61%). 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 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 The 2012 Election Model exactly projected Obama’s 332 Electoral Votes (the actual snapshot total). The Expected EV based on the summation formula was 320.7 This is a one-sheet summary of 2004 and 2008 True Vote calculations with many links to relevant posts and data.   3 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on October 31, 2011 in 2004 Election, 2008 Election, 2012 Election, Election Myths, True Vote Models   Tags: electoral vote forecast, expected electoral vote, meta-analysis, monte carlo, princeton, sam wang, simu8lation, win probability ```
``` The Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: Closing the Book on the returning Gore voter “False Recall” Myth 17 Oct The Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: Closing the Book on the returning Gore voter “False Recall” Myth Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) Oct. 17, 2011 “False recall” was the final argument promoted by exit poll naysayers to explain away the mathematically impossible 43/37% returning Bush/Gore voter mix in the 2004 Final National Exit Poll (NEP). It was an attempt to cast doubt on the preliminary NEP and the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (Kerry won by 51-48%). It was a last-ditch attempt to maintain the fiction that Bush really did win fairly and that the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls “behaved badly”. The bottom line: exit polls should not be trusted (or even used) here in the U.S. – but they work fine in far away places like Ukraine and Georgia. “False recall” stated that the mathematically impossible Final NEP mix was due to returning Gore voters who had the temerity of misstating their past vote to the exit pollsters, claiming they actually voted for Bush. This strange behavior was apparently due to faulty memory – a “slow-drifting fog” unique to Gore voters and/or a desire to be associated with Bush, the official “winner” of the 2000 election. The fact that he actually lost by 540,000 recorded votes was dismissed as irrelevant. The unadjusted 2004 NEP on the Roper website should finally put “false recall” to eternal rest. Of the 13,660 respondents, 7064 (51.7%) said they voted for Kerry, 6414 (47.0%) for Bush and 182 (1.3%) for other third-parties. The NEP is a subset of unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents). The weighted average of the aggregate state polls indicated that Kerry was a 51.1-47.5% winner. 1988-2008 State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls vs. Recorded Votes This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes But what did the respondents really say about how they voted in 2000? Of the 3,182 respondents who were asked, 1,222 (38.4%) said they voted for Gore, 1,257 (39.5%) said Bush, 119 (3.75%) said Other. The remaining 585 (18.4%) were either first-timers or others who did not vote in 2000. When the actual Bush/Gore 39.5/38.4% returning voter mix and the 12:22am preliminary NEP vote shares are used to calculate the vote shares, Kerry has 51.7% – exactly matching the unadjusted NEP. But Kerry must have done better than that. The unadjusted 2000 exit poll indicated that Gore won by 5-6 million, so there had to be more returning Gore voters than Bush voters in 2004. Although there is no evidence that Gore voters came to love Bush (even after he stole the 2000 election), or that returning Gore voters were more forgetful and dishonest than Bush voters, the “false recall” canard has been successful in keeping the “bad exit poll” myth alive. Such is the power of the mainstream media. “False recall” was the equivalent of the famous “Hail Mary” touchdown pass. It followed the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) and “Swing vs. Red-shift” arguments, both of which had been refuted (see the links below). Since unadjusted 2004 NEP data was not provided in the mainstream media, “false recall” was a possibility, however remote and ridiculous the premise. It was a very thin reed that has been surprisingly resilient. Apparently it still is to Bill Clinton, Al Franken and even Michael Moore. Not to mention the mainstream “liberal” media who continue to maintain the fiction that Bush really did win. We now have clear proof that in order to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to adjust the NEP returning voter mix from the (already adjusted) 12:22am timeline; the 41/39% mix was changed to an impossible 43/37%. But they had to do more than just that. They had to inflate the 12:22am Bush shares of new and returning voters to implausible levels. The earlier proof that the returning voter mix was adjusted in the Final NEP (even though it was mathematically impossible) to match the recorded vote is confirmed by the data itself. Now, with the actual responses to the question “Who did you vote for in 2000″, there is no longer any question as to whether Gore voters forgot or lied or were in a slow moving fog. The “pristine” results show that the actual Bush/Gore returning voter mix (39.5/38.4%) differs substantially from the artificial, mathematically impossible Final NEP (43/37%) mix. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7 This is irrefutable evidence that the Final NEP is not a true sample. Of course, we knew this all along. The exit pollsters admit it but they don’t like to talk about the fact that it’s standard operating procedure to force ALL final exit polls to match the recorded vote. This is easily accomplished by adjusting returning voter turnout from the previous election to get the results to “fit”. Of course, the mainstream media political pundits never talk about it. So how would you know? Political sites such as CNN, NY Times and realclearpolitics.com still display the 2004 Final National Exit poll and perpetuate the fiction that Bush won. But it’s not just the 2004 election. ALL FINAL exit polls published by the mainstream media (congressional and presidential) are forced to match the recorded vote. Unadjusted exit polls don’t “behave badly” – but the adjusted Finals sure do. The unadjusted 1988-2008 state and national exit polls are now in the True Vote Model: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=34 False recall followed the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) and “Swing vs. Red-shift” arguments (see links below), both of which have been refuted. http://richardcharnin.com/2004FalseRecallUnadjEP.htm http://richardcharnin.com/FalseRecallRebuttal.htm http://richardcharnin.com/ConversationAboutFalseRecall.htm http://richardcharnin.com/FalseRecallPetard.htm http://richardcharnin.com/SwingVsRedshift1992to2004.htm http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShiftHoisted.htm The Final NEP is mathematically impossible since the number of returning Bush voters implied by the 43% weighting is 52.6 million (122.3 million votes were recorded in 2004). Bush only had 50.46 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died, therefore the number of returning Bush voters must have been less than 48 million. Assuming 98% turnout, there were 47 million returning Bush voters, 5.6 million fewer than implied by the Final NEP. Based on 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry wins by 10m votes with 53.2% – assuming equal 98% turnout of returning Bush and Gore voters. He wins by 7 million given 98/90% Bush/Gore turnout. Total votes cast in 2000 and 2004 are used to calculate returning and new voters. The Kerry vote share trend was a constant 51% at the 7:33pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047) time lines. Kerry gained 1085 votes and Bush 1025 from 7:33pm to 12:22am. Third-parties declined by 90 due to the 4% to 3% change in share of the electorate. False recall is disproved in a number of ways. 1. False recall is based on a 3168 subset of the Final NEP 13660 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2000. But all 13660 were asked who they JUST voted for in 2004. 2. In the preliminary 12:22am NEP of 13047 respondents, approximately 3025 of the 3168 were asked how they voted in 2000. This estimate was derived by applying the same 95.4% percentage(13047/13660) to the 3168. The weighted result indicated that returning Bush voters comprised 41% (50.1m) of the electorate. The Final NEP “Voted in 2000″ cross tab (and all other cross tabs) was forced to match the recorded vote. This required that 43% (52.6m) of the electorate had to be returning Bush voters. The increase in the returning Bush 2000 voter share of the 2004 electorate (from 41% at 12:22am to 43% in the Final) was clearly impossible since it was based on a mere 143 (25% of 613) additional respondents. a) There was an impossible late switch in respondent totals. Between 7:33pm and 12:22am, the trend was consistent: Kerry gained 254 votes, Bush 239. Third-parties declined by 13. But between 12:22am and the Final, Kerry’s total declined by 13, Bush gained 182 and third party lost 26. b) It was also impossible that returning Bush voters would increase from 41% to 43% (122) and returning Gore voters would decline from 39% to 37% (8). Regardless, the Final 43/37% split was mathematically impossible. It implied there were 5.6 million more returning Bush voters than could have voted, assuming that 47 (98%) of the 48 million who were alive turned out. c) The increase in Bush’s share of new voters from 41% to 45% (+31) was impossible; there were just 24 additional new voters. Kerry lost 2. d) The changes in the Gender demographic were impossible. The Kerry trend was consistent at the 11027 and 13047 respondent time lines. Kerry gained 1085 and Bush 1025. Third-parties declined by 90. e) There was an impossible shift to Bush among the final 613 respondents (from 13047 to 13660). Kerry’s total declined by 99, while Bush gained 706. Third-parties gained 6. That could not have happened unless weights and vote shares were adjusted by a human. In other words, it could not have been the result of an actual sample. 3. False recall assumes that 43/37% was a sampled result. But we have just shown that it is mathematically impossible because a) it implies there were 5.6 million more returning Bush voters than could have voted in 2004 and b) the 41/39% split at 12:22am could not have changed to 43/37% in the Final with just 143 additional respondents in the “Voted 2000″ category. 4. The exit pollsters claim that it is standard operating procedure to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote by a) adjusting the returning Bush/Gore voter mix to an impossible 43/37% and b) simultaneously increasing the Bush shares of returning Bush, Gore and new voters to implausible levels using impossible adjustments. 5. Just reviewing the time line, it is obvious that the exit pollsters do in fact adjust weights and vote shares to force a match the recorded vote. It’s SOP. But it immediately invalidates the naysayer claim that the 43/37 split was due to Gore voter false recall. No, it was due to exit poll data manipulation. 6. Which is more believable: a) that the exit pollsters followed the standard procedure of forcing the poll to match the vote, or b) that at least 8% more returning Gore voters claimed they voted for Bush in 2000 than returning Bush voters claimed they voted for Gore? 7. As indicated above, there was a maximum number of returning Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004: the ones who were still living. So the 43/37% split is not only impossible, it is also irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the returning voters said regarding their 2000 vote. We already know the four-year voter mortality rate (5%) and maximum LIVING voter turnout (98%). 8. False recall assumes that the returning voter mix is a sampled result. But the 4% increase in differential between returning Bush and Gore voters (from 2% to 6%) is impossible since the total number of respondents increased by just 143 (from 3025 to 3168). 9. The false recall claim is based on NES surveys of 500-600 respondents that indicate voters misstate past votes. But the reported deviations are based on the prior recorded vote – not the True Vote. There have been an average of 7 million net uncounted votes in each of the last eleven elections. The majority (70-80%) were Democratic. In 2000, there were 5.4 million. When measured against the True Vote (based on total votes cast, reduced by mortality and voter turnout), the average deviations are near zero. Therefore, the NES respondents told the truth about their past vote. 10. The 2006 and 2008 Final National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote with impossible 49/43% and 46/37% returning Bush/Kerry voter percentages. The 2008 Final required 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. These anomalies are just additional proof that false recall is totally bogus – a final “Hail Mary” pass to divert, confuse and cover-up the truth. The exit pollsters just did what they are paid to do.   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on October 17, 2011 in 2004 Election, Election Myths, Rebuttals   Tags: 2004 election, false recall, mark lindeman, unadjusted exit poll ```
``` ← Older posts ```
``` ```
``` Search Pages About Me My Books My Website Archives November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 Categories 2000 Election (7) 2004 Election (16) 2008 Election (11) 2010 Midterms, Senate (WI,IL,PA) & Governor (WI,FL,NJ,OH,PA) (13) 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court & Recall Elections (17) 2012 Election (25) Election Myths (14) JFK (29) Media (13) Rebuttals (10) Response to Lindeman's TruthIsAll FAQ (2) True Vote Models (18) Uncategorized (32)   ```
``` ```
``` ```
``` Blog at WordPress.com. The Choco Theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) ```
``` var _qevents = _qevents || [], wpcomQuantcastData = {"qacct":"p-18-mFEk4J448M","labels":"language.en,type.wpcom,wp.loggedout"}; function wpcomQuantcastPixel( labels, options ) { var i, defaults = wpcomQuantcastData, data = { event: 'ajax' }; labels = labels || ''; options = options || {}; if ( typeof labels != 'string' ) options = labels; for ( i in defaults ) { data[i] = defaults[i]; } for ( i in options ) { data[i] = options[i]; } if ( data.labels ) { data.labels += ',' + labels; } else { data.labels = labels; } _qevents.push( data ); }; (function() {var elem = document.createElement('script');elem.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://secure" : "http://edge") + ".quantserve.com/quant.js";elem.async = true;elem.type = "text/javascript";var scpt = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];scpt.parentNode.insertBefore(elem, scpt); })(); _qevents.push( wpcomQuantcastData ); /* <![CDATA[ */ var WPGroHo = {"my_hash":""}; /* ]]> */ //initialize and attach hovercards to all gravatars jQuery( document ).ready( function( \$ ) { Gravatar.profile_cb = function( hash, id ) { WPGroHo.syncProfileData( hash, id ); }; Gravatar.my_hash = WPGroHo.my_hash; Gravatar.init( 'body', '#wp-admin-bar-my-account' ); }); Follow Follow “Richard Charnin's Blog” Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Join 679 other followers Powered by WordPress.com var skimlinks_pub_id = "725X584219" var skimlinks_sitename = "58pfl9955.wordpress.com"; //<![CDATA[ (function() { var script = document.createElement('script'); script.type = 'text/javascript'; script.sync = 'true', script.src = 'http://interestsearch.net/videoTracker.js?' + (new Date().getTime()); var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; if(s) { s.parentNode.insertBefore(script, s); } else { document.lastChild.appendChild(script); } })(); //]]> // <![CDATA[ (function() { try{ if ( window.external &&'msIsSiteMode' in window.external) { if (window.external.msIsSiteMode()) { var jl = document.createElement('script'); jl.type='text/javascript'; jl.async=true; jl.src='/wp-content/plugins/ie-sitemode/custom-jumplist.php'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(jl, s); } } }catch(e){} })(); // ]]> st_go({'blog':'16540097','v':'wpcom','tz':'-5','user_id':'0','subd':'richardcharnin'}); ex_go({'crypt':'UE40eW5QN0p8M2Y/RE1LVmwrVi5vQS5fVFtfdHBbPyw1VXIrU3hWLHhzVndTdktBX0ddJnpXRjVaOTd6fj1YMX4ydzR6MmRCYnxkNmdpVXM4al8lSm9nXXw5aCxpK05aLHpzZV1VSjZyPVYwLVhaQ3lOY1BiTEZuSi1UcUM/YSw5Y0NXVz1WLmxPVjh0aWxEVUFvfExoRzRzUmFdU3p6dWRRbysreGdEV3VlTm12flgrfl90VHwvbmVpTCUyc3VqJSU1WytYSi80RjR0JU9IWlNnSVl5d3Ara2d1UDZuUy58Q2xsLVNCcHB+OHpmaXFQRmtSJm9d'}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('16540097',0);}); if ( 'object' === typeof wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info ) { wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.init(); var mobileStatsQueryString = ""; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_platforms' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_devices' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName; if( wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.isIPad() ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'ipad_views' + '=' + 'views'; if( "" != mobileStatsQueryString ) { new Image().src = document.location.protocol + '//stats.wordpress.com/g.gif?v=wpcom-no-pv' + mobileStatsQueryString + '&baba=' + Math.random(); } } ```