Historical Overview of Election Fraud Analysis

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013

http://richardcharnin.com/

Historical Overview

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.

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 126 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 126 which exceeded the MoE, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (5E-106). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000005.

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.

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 Clinton 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 Clinton 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 him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But 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 this election.

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 and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000 – and only 48 million were alive in 2004. Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the adjusted Final NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.5 million. In order to match the recorded vote, the NEP required an impossible 110% living Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004.

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. But Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share understated his 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 – even it was 50% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential between the Final NEP and state exit poll ratings, let’s deduct 3% from his 48% pre-election approval. This gives Bush a 45% vote share – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s final pre-election 48% average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to have it match the recorded vote – and perpetuate the fraud. There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and 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, they needed to indicate 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.

 

A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Oct. 29, 2010
Update: March 25, 2013

Nate, you have it all wrong in your book. The Signal is the 52-42% Democratic lead in the 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls. The Noise is the media propaganda that the Democrats won by 48-46% as shown in the published adjusted polls. But we all know that it is standard operating procedure to force the exit polls to match the (bogus) recorded vote. The media (that means you) want the public to believe that Systemic Election Fraud is a myth.

Nate, this is a reply to your November 2008 post Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls. It’s four years later but it would be instructive to review your comments on exit polls to see if you feel the same way about them. I’m still waiting for your response to my open letter regarding your pathetic last-place ranking of pollster John Zogby . I would also be interested in your answers to these twenty-five questions. It would enable readers to gauge your perspectives on election fraud.

Are you asking us to ignore a) the final exit polls or b) the unadjusted, preliminary state and national exit polls? If it’s (a), then you must believe that election fraud is systemic since unadjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even if they are fraudulent. If it’s (b), then you must believe that election fraud is a myth and that the recorded vote reflects actual voter intent (i.e. the true vote). Based on your writings, it must be (b). After reading your “ten reasons”, I can come up with ten reasons why you have never responded to my posts.

The “experts” whom you cite all have issues. You wrote: Oh, let me count the ways. Almost all of this, by the way, is lifted from Mark Blumenthal’s outstanding Exit Poll FAQ.

Your first mistake was to believe all those discredited GOP talking points and to cite Mark Blumenthal as your source. You may not be aware that Mark was the original Mystery Pollster and has worked full-time since 2004 to debunk any references to exit polls as indicators of election fraud.

In June 2006, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a seminal article in Rolling Stone Magazine: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? In a pitiful attempt to debunk RFK, Salon’s Farhad Manjoo wrote Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No. Manjoo’s hit piece contained factual errors and omissions and was fully debunked by a number of analysts. Mark Blumenthal then attemped a defense of Manjoo and smeared RFK in this piece: Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls?

Here is My Response to the Mystery Pollster’s critique of RFK and an Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com.

Now I will count the ways. My responses follow each of your statements as to why we should ignore exit polls.

1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.

RC: Not true. I should stop right here. Exit polls have a much smaller margin of error than pre-election polls. It stands to reason that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls because a) those polled know exactly who they voted for and b) in pre-election polls, respondents might change their mind – or not vote.

Regarding cluster samples, perhaps you are unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll as well as in the NEP Methods Statement that exit poll respondents were randomly-selected and the overall margin of error was 1%. Adding the standard 30% cluster effect raises the calculated 0.86% MoE to 1.1%.

But I understand why you would claim that exit polls are inaccurate since you apparently believe election fraud on voting machines is non-existent. After all, you never discuss the fraud factor. So of course you would conclude that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote indicate that the polls are wrong. The fundamental problem with all your analysis is that you fail to consider the possibility that the polls were close to the truth and the discrepancies from the recorded vote were the result of systematic election fraud. But that is typical of mainstream media pundits. If they discussed the fraud factor, they would be out of a job.

You apparently believe that the final Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls (which are a subset of all Registered Voters (RV) interviewed) are spot-on because they match the bogus recorded vote. But LV polls always understate Democratic turnout, since the vast majority of voters who fail to pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are young, newly registered Democrats. That’s one reason why Democrats average higher in the RV polls than in LVs and the media avoids the RVs in the month prior to the election. Another factor is that telephone polls miss cell-phone users who are young and Democratic. Most important, pre-election polls have been shown to overweight Republicans based on prior bogus recorded votes.

2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you’ll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.

RC: There you go again, assuming that the recorded vote was fraud-free.

Of course the Democrats always do better in the exit polls than in the recorded vote. But did you ever consider why? Perhaps you are unaware that millions of votes are uncounted in every election and the vast majority are Democratic (over 50% are in minority districts). The U.S. Census reported over 80 million net uncounted votes since 1968. You make the false assumption that the recorded vote is the True Vote. Uncounted votes alone put the lie to that argument, not to mention votes switched at the DREs and central tabulators.

You say Clinton did not win Indiana or Texas. How do you know? Can you provide proof that the voting machines were not tampered with? Perhaps you are unaware that in 1992 there were 9.4 million net uncounted votes, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton’s margins were very plausible. The exit polls indicated that he won Indiana by 53-30% (Perot had 16%) and Texas by 43-32% (Perot had 25%). But they were both likely stolen by Bush. Clinton lost Indiana (42.9-36.8%) by 138,000 votes (330,000 uncounted). He lost Texas (40.6-37.1%) by 215,000 (663,000 uncounted). So had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have won both states. Note that we are not even considering vote-switching from Clinton or Perot to Bush, just the uncounted votes.

In 1996, there were 8.7 million net uncounted votes – again, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton won the Indiana exit poll by 50-40%, but Dole won the recorded vote by 117,000, 47.1-41.6% (230,000 net uncounted). The Texas exit poll was tied at 46-46%, but Dole won by 280,000 votes, 48.8-43.8% (700,000 net uncounted). Again, had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have likely won both. And this does not include vote switching from Clinton or Perot to Dole, just the uncounted votes.

3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year’s primaries. They overstated Barack Obama’s performance by an average of about 7 points.

RC: You are apparently unaware of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in which he advised Republicans to cross over in the Democratic primaries and vote for Hillary Clinton. His objective was to deny Obama the nomination. Obama easily won the all the caucuses in which voters were visually counted.

4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample — essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place — in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws.

RC: You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky wrote in the notes to the 2004 National Exit Poll that respondents were randomly selected as they exited the polling booth. What is your definition of a random sample?

5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they are more enthusiastic about this election.

RC: You quote a biased GOP pollster who never did an exit poll. There is no evidence that Democrats are more likely to participate. In fact, the historical data shows otherwise. You are resurrecting the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis that was disproved by the exit pollster’s own data in each of the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. It is also contradicted by a linear regression analysis which showed that response rates were highest in partisan GOP precincts and Red states.

6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before Election Day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore’s share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state.

RC: You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky claimed that their 2004 precinct design sample was near perfect.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that in the 2000 election, nearly 6 million ballots were never counted (a combination of spoiled, absentee and provisional) – and 75-80% were Gore votes – meaning that his True Vote margin was at least 3 million more than his recorded 540,000. And that is why Gore led the state exit poll aggregate by 50-45%.

You are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that in Florida there were over 180,000 spoiled ballots (113,000 double and triple-punched and 65,000 underpunched) that were never counted – and 75% were Gore votes. You apparently believe the GOP con that the spoiled ballots were due to stupid voters. Why don’t you mention the thousands of Gore absentee ballots that were discarded? Perhaps you are unaware that it has been determined GOP election officials discarded Democratic absentee ballots and included GOP ballots that were filed after the due date. And what about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot in which thousands of Jews were fooled into voting for Buchanan?

If you really believe that Bush won both the national and Florida elections in 2000, then you must also believe that a) the tooth fairy exists, b) global warming is just a hoax and c) the economic meltdown was due to natural supply and demand forces and that the economic forecasting models were at fault. You ignore the strong evidence that the meltdown was due to corrupt global banksters gaming the financial system. And of course, you ignore the election fraudsters that have systematically gamed the computers to miscount votes and prevent millions of eligible citizens from voting. According to you, it is all just noise, never human corruption.

7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By “late” voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours.

RC: As a quant, you should ask how was it that Kerry led by 51-48% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) but Bush led at 1:00am at the final (13660) after just 613 additional respondents? It’s simple. The pollsters had to force the National to match the bogus recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%). It was impossible – a total sham. It was Kerry who led the final unadjusted NEP by 51.7-47.0%.

Are you aware that final exit polls are always FORCED to match the recorded vote? The 2004 adjusted final National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were returning Bush voters and 37% Gore voters. But Bush only had 50.5 million voters in 2000 – and approximately 2.5 million died. So there could not have been more than 48 million returning Bush voters. If 47 million turned out, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. How do you explain that?

In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents) by 61-37%. But the poll was forced to match the recorded 52.9-45.6%. Are you aware that Obama had 52.4% of 121 million votes recorded on Election Day and 59.2% of the 10 million recorded later?

8. “Leaked” exit poll results may not be the genuine article. Sometimes, sources like Matt Drudge and Jim Geraghty have gotten their hands on the actual exit polls collected by the network pools. At other times, they may be reporting data from “first-wave” exit polls, which contain extremely small sample sizes and are not calibrated for their demographics. And at other places on the Internet (though likely not from Geraghty and Drudge, who actually have reasonably good track records), you may see numbers that are completely fabricated.

RC: Really? Are these fabricated? You are apparently unaware of the National Exit Poll timeline. Kerry led by 51-48% at 4:00pm (8349 respondents), 9:00pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). Kerry led at the final 13660 respondents by 51.7-47.0%. But at approximately 1:00am, Kerry responders were flipped to Bush in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote.

9. A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout demographics — will younger voters and minorities show up in greater numbers? — the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at best a random sampling.

RC: Perhaps you are unaware that high turnout is always good for the Democrats. That’s why the GOP is always trying to suppress the vote. The National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won 57-62% of new voters and that Obama had 72% of new voters in 2008. But at least you now agree that exit polls are indeed random samples. Glad you corrected point #4.

9. You’ll know the actual results soon enough anyway. Have patience, my friends, and consider yourselves lucky: in France, it is illegal to conduct a poll of any kind within 48 hours of the election. But exit polls are really more trouble than they’re worth, at least as a predictive tool. An independent panel created by CNN in the wake of the Florida disaster in 2000 recommended that the network completely ignore exit polls when calling particular states. I suggest that you do the same.

RC: I suggest that you do your homework. You will surely fail this Election Fraud Quiz. Exit polls are more trouble than they are worth? Yes, it’s true – for those who rig the elections. Perhaps you are unaware that the exit polls were the first indicators that the 2004 election was stolen. Nate, your problem is that you refuse to admit that Election Fraud is systemic – or that it even exists. You want your readers to believe that the recorded vote accurately depicts true voter intent and that the exit polls are always wrong. Tell that to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow when you guest on their show.

In 2008, Obama had a recorded 52.9% share and won by 9.5 million votes. But he had to overcome the 5% fraud factor. You are probably unaware that the unadjusted National Exit poll indicates that he won 61% of 17,836 respondents. Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate (82,388 respondents) winning by 23 million votes – exactly matching the True Vote Model which used the same adjusted final NEP vote shares.

The Bush/Kerry 46/37% returning voter weights in the adjusted final 2008 NEP implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters – an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush voters. The True Vote Model calculated a feasible 47/40% Kerry/Bush split. Bush won the bogus recorded vote by just 3 million but Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million.

And you would also surely agree that there could not have been 5 million returning third-party voters indicated by the final 2008 NEP since just 1.2 million were recorded in 2004.

We have the 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national exit polls from the Roper website (nearly 500,000 exit poll respondents). The Democrats led the polls by 52-42%; but just 48-46% in the recorded vote. That’s an awful lot of Reluctant Republican Responders, yes?

Presidential election fraud is consistent and predictable. The unadjusted state and national exit polls have matched the True Vote Model in every election since 1988.

You are probably unaware that of the 274 state exit polls in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 126 exceeded the margin of error (including a 30% cluster factor). Only 14 would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126, 123 “red-shifted” to the Republican and THREE to the Democrat. The probability is 5E-106. Can you explain it?
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000 00000000000 0000000000 000005

Finally, Nate, you need to gain a new perspective on exit polls.

—————————————————-
Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
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 Election 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 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 

Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference

Richard Charnin

Oct. 30, 2012

In 2010, I wrote Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll.

My new book was published on Oct. 27, 2012:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

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.

I created the 1988-2008 State and National Presidential Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database based on the Roper (University of Connecticut) election data archive.

The authors write:
“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?”

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections there were 274 state exit polls – and 226 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability is ZERO (3.7E-31). Of the 274 polls, 126 exceeded the margin of error; only 14 would be expected to do so at the 95% confidence level. Once again, the probability is ZERO (8E-75). Of the 126 polls which exceeded the margin of error, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability is ZERO (5.4E-106).

“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? If so, the fact that they must be adjusted to conform to the recorded vote indicates that the recorded vote must also be impossible.

“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.”

That is why I created the 1988-2008 presidential state and national exit polls using Roper as the source.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding 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.”

The same old discredited and debunked Reluctant Bush Responder canard that was refuted by the exit pollsters own data. It 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 believed 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.

“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

 

Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy

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.

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 wasn’t 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

 

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

The myth that the early 2004 exit polls were biased for Kerry is refuted by the National Exit Poll (NEP) timeline. Kerry had 51% at 4pm (8,349 respondents). His exit poll share remained constant up to the final 13,660 respondents (51.7%). The pollsters had to switch 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to have the Final NEP match the recorded vote. Assuming that Kerry had 51.7% of 125.7 million votes cast, he won by nearly 6 million votes. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.

To view the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database click this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15

The source data is provided by the Roper Center UConn

The data for each election is viewed by clicking the indicated tab at the top of the screen. State exit polls are displayed in the same row as the recorded vote. The national aggregate exit poll is calculated by weighting the state exit poll shares by votes cast.
Aggregate National share = Sum(exit poll(i) * state weight(i)) / National Votes Cast, i = 1,51 states

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

Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%

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

Total 100% 51% 47% 2%


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

Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1% 

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

Total 100% 50.9% 47.1% 2.0%


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

Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

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

Total 100% 51.2% 47.5% 1.3%


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

Kerry 51.7%; Bush 47.0%

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

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

Total 100% 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%


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

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

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

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

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

Total 100% 48.5% 51.1% 0.4%

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

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

Total.. 100% 51.8% 47.2% 1.0%

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

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

Total.. 100% 47.8% 51.2% 1.0%

True Vote Model
Kerry 53.5%; Bush 45.1%

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

Total 100 53.5% 45.1% 1.4%


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

Click for the Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17836 respondents)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total. 100% 52.7% 45.4% 1.9%


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

 

Et tu, Al Gore?

Updated: Jan. 27, 2012

Et tu, Al Gore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

 

A Guide to Watching the New Hampshire Primary

A Guide to Watching the New Hampshire Primary

Richard Charnin

Jan. 10, 2011

This is what the media wants you to believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Exit Poll = Recorded Vote

 

Current TV and Election Truth

Current TV and Election Truth

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Dec. 7, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Russia today for a parliamentary election she said was rigged. She also said that election gains by Islamist parties must not set back Egypt’s push toward democracy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57337344/clinton-calls-for-russian-poll-fraud-probe/

Hillary talks about Election Fraud in Russia. But we never hear a peep from politicians or the media about systemic election fraud in the U.S. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

But now Cenk Uygur, a hard-hitting progressive blogger and former MSNBC host, this week introduced his own show, The Young Turks, on Current TV. Cenk has always impressed this observer with his rational, well-delivered commentary. Now he has the chance to step up and expose the facts of systemic U.S. election fraud that have been kept hidden by a totally corrupted corporate media. Cenk and Keith Olbermann are no longer constrained by their corporate masters.

Current TV was founded by Al Gore, the man who was elected president in 2000 but never took office. The election was stolen from the 55 million Americans who voted for him. According to unadjusted state exit polls and the independent True Vote Model, Gore won by 6 million votes. The American public has been hoodwinked by the corporate media into thinking that he won by only 540,000 nationally and that he lost the election in Florida by 537 votes. A mini-landslide was denied by a judicial/political coup in plain sight. The effects of the theft are obvious – just look around.

2000 state unadjusted exit polls vs. the recorded votes:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=4

In 2004 it was John Kerry’s turn. One week after the election, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (now Current TV’s lead anchor) presented a powerful expose of the nefarious election anomalies in Ohio and Florida. Another election was stolen, this time from the 67 million who voted for John Kerry. Unfortunately, KO never followed up on the massive election fraud. The public was once again hoodwinked by the corporate media into believing that Bush won by 3 million votes. But it was Kerry who was the real winner of a 10 million True Vote landslide.

2004 state unadjusted exit polls vs. the recorded votes:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

In 2008, Obama won by 9.5 million votes and had 365 electoral votes. He had a 52.9% RECORDED VOTE SHARE. But the True Vote Model indicates that he had 58% (76-53 million) and 420 electoral votes – exactly matching the aggregate of the UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS (83,388 respondents). But there is more: The UNADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (17836 respondents), a subset of the state polls, indicates that Obama won by a MASSIVE 61-37%. The landslide was denied.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

The Election Truth Movement is hopeful that Cenk and Keith will do their job. They need to remind us of the hypocrisy of U.S. politicians and media pundits who criticize election fraud outside the U.S. but never discuss it here. If Current TV won’t break the ice, who will? The last thing we need is for Current to morph into MSNBC Light.

 

Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Nov. 28, 2011

The Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, endorsed Newt Gingrich for president.

Nate Silver just posted: “Newspaper’s Endorsement Has Been Leading Indicator in New Hampshire”.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/newspapers-endorsement-has-been-leading-indicator-in-new-hampshire/

The article deserves some commentary as it illustrates how the media avoids the issue of election fraud.

Nate wrote: “The endorsement represents one of the most tangible signs of parts of the conservative establishment coming around to Mr. Gingrich, who to date has received very few endorsements from Republican elected officials. It also represents a blow to Mitt Romney, who had led all polls of the state. But does the endorsement tell us anything about how New Hampshire Republicans are likely to vote? Or is it just fodder for a slow news day?”

But even the results of the NH primary will not tell us how people actually voted. Nate never considers the history of New Hampshire Primary Election Fraud in his model.

Silver compares how the Republican candidate endorsed by The Union Leader finished in each of the past six competitive New Hampshire primaries to polling numbers at the time of the endorsement. He finds that “although only three of the six Republicans endorsed by The Union Leader during this period won their primary, all six outperformed their polling”. He notes that that “on average candidates have some tendency to improve in the actual voting from their poll standing because the polls include undecided voters, whereas everyone who actually votes will have to choose a candidate”.

That is very true. Undecided voters do finally decide when they vote. We already know that.

Nate wanted to “check whether the results could be attributable to random noise”. So he ran a “simple regression analysis that explains a candidate’s share of the vote in New Hampshire as a function of whether or not he was endorsed by The Union Leader and his polling average at the time.”

Like all election forecasters in the mainstream media, Nate uses the recorded vote share in his model. He does not consider the Election Fraud Variable Factor. He ignores this basic identity:
Recorded Vote = True Vote + Election Fraud Factor.

Nate has an accounting degree, so he is surely aware of the analogous accounting identity:
Total Assets = Equity + Liabilities

Nate determined that “The Union Leader’s endorsement has been highly statistically significant in helping to explain the voting results. Consistent with the simpler averaging method that we used before, it pegs the endorsement as having roughly an 11-percentage-point impact”. But Nate cautions: “Nevertheless, there are a couple of very important cautions as to its broader significance. First, it does not necessarily imply causation. It is unlikely that a candidate wins as much as an additional 11 percent of the vote simply because The Union Leader endorses him. Instead, it may be more of a leading indicator for how actual New Hampshire voters will think about the candidates once they finish sorting through them. That is, it replicates in some way the thinking process that some segment of New Hampshire voters will go through, whether or not they pay any attention to The Union Leader itself. More broadly, the endorsement may serve as a proxy for various sorts of intangible qualities that may help a candidate to perform strongly in New Hampshire but that are not necessarily reflected in the early polls of the state”.

How voters will think after sorting through them? Thinking process of the voters? Intangible qualities? He needs to KISS and state that voters have not made up their minds. But even when they do, will it matter when the NH Election Fraud machine goes to work? What Nate should do is run a sensitivity analysis based on various undecided voter scenarios. Now that would be useful.

“Second, this finding is drawn from only six historical elections. As I often remind our readers, a regression analysis on historical data is not really the same thing as a prediction of how these factors will play out in the future. Fairly often, a relationship that is found to be highly statistically significant in past data will prove to be unreliable when applied out-of-sample”.

That is just a fancy way of saying that past performance does not guarantee future results. It’s like the standard caveat in a stock-picking or sport-betting system. What is the purpose of a regression analysis if not as a guide to predict the future? Why bother to do it in the first place? Silver ranks pollsters based on past “performance” in projecting a bogus recorded vote using Likely Voter (LV) polls. And the most biased pollsters are at the top of his rankings. The best, Zogby, is at the bottom.

Nate concludes: “Nevertheless, this is a pretty good sign for Mr. Gingrich. If you do take the results of the regression analysis to be tantamount to a prediction, they imply that New Hampshire could be quite close, with Mr. Romney finishing with 36 percent of the vote and Mr. Gingrich at 30 percent. What I think is fair to say is that Mr. Gingrich would at least have a shot at winning New Hampshire if he also wins Iowa, a result that could be devastating to Mr. Romney’s campaign”.

Yes, the primary could be quite close. Or maybe it won’t be close. We already know that. But why is it that Nate never mentions New Hampshire’s not-so-glorious history of Election Fraud?

Let’s take a look at some historical facts regarding the New Hampshire Primary.
________________________________________________________________________________

2008

Clinton was expected to win the Iowa caucuses but lost to Obama and Edwards. If Clinton lost in New Hampshire, she would have been out of the running. The 20 final pre-election polls had Obama winning by an average of 8% over Clinton. The early exit polls also had Obama winning by 8%. As in 2004 and 2006, the average of the final pre-election polls matched the unadjusted exit polls.

But Hillary won NH in a major upset. Obama won the hand-counted precincts by 5.90% but lost the machine-counts by the same margin -and there were many more votes counted by machine.

There were the usual tortured explanations from the mainstream media explaining why the polls were “wrong”. But Election Fraud was not one of them. The Final Exit poll was forced to match an implausible vote count. Of course, an uninformed public believes whatever the media tells them. There were the usual rationalizations to explain the astounding pre-election and exit poll discrepancies. The media mantra was that Clinton’s emotional plea on the evening before the election gave her the late undecided and sympathetic voters (mostly women).

Date Pollster Sample Mix MoE BO HRC JE

106 Str Vision 600 9.7% 4.0% 38 29 19
106 USA/Gallup 778 12.6% 3.5% 41 28 19
106 CBS News 323 5.2% 5.5% 35 28 19
106 Marist 636 10.3% 3.9% 36 28 22

106 CNN 599 9.7% 4.0% 39 30 16
107 Rasmussen 774 28.7% 2.3% 37 30 19
107 Zogby 862 14.0% 3.3% 42 29 17
107 ARG 600 9.7% 4.0% 40 31 20

Total 6172 100% 1.25% 38.6 29.3 18.8
Recorded 36.9 39.5 17.1

Optical Scan
Clinton 91,717 52.9507%
Obama 81,495 47.0493%
Total 173,212 79.60%

Hand Count
Clinton 20,889 47.0494%
Obama 23,509 52.9506%
Total 44,398 20.40%

Given that Obama won 52.9506% of the hand-counted votes, what was the probability that Clinton would win 52.9506% of the optical scan votes? These are real votes, not samples, so we can derive an estimate of the probability of voting machine fraud without considering a statistical margin of error. We KNOW exactly WHAT happened. We don’t know WHY or HOW. But we can calculate a fair estimate of the probability that the result was just a coincidence or due to the miscounting of votes. One might be tempted to say that the probability is 1 in 173,212 since there were exactly 173,212 joint optical scan ballots. But that would be unrealistic.

We need to consider a plausible range of outcomes. Let’s assume that Clinton could expect somewhere between 45%-55% of the 173,212 votes. That is a plausible 10% range of 17,321 possible outcomes, from 77,945 to 95,267. Given the range of 17,321 possible outcomes, what was the probability HRC would get exactly 91,717 votes due to chance alone? The approximate probability that it was just a coincidence is 1 in 17,321.

Now we will try a different approach: calculate the probability based on the exit poll discrepancy. Given that Obama led the poll at 8pm by 39-36%, what was the probability that HRC would win the official vote by at least 3% (39-36%)? Assume that the exit poll margin of error was 1.5%. The Excel normal distribution function calculates the probability that the discrepancy was due to chance: Probability = normdist (.39, .36, .015/1.96, true) = 0.0044% or 1 in 22,577.
________________________________________________________________________________

Was it the voting machines? This is from Bradblog:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
Brad wrote:
“I’m not sure why Obama would have conceded so soon, given the virtually inexplicable turn of events in New Hampshire tonight. What’s going on here? Before proceeding, I recommend you read the third section of the post I just ran an hour or so ago, concerning the way the ballots are counted in New Hampshire, largely on Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by a very very bad company named LHS Associates.. Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. See the previous report, as I recommend, which also includes a video of that hack, and footage of the guy who runs LHS Associates”.
________________________________________________________________________________

2008 Republican Primary

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=749

Ron Paul had 15% of the Hand-counted precincts. This would have placed him in 3rd place, just as the pre-election polls indicated. Not a single hand count township showed less than 10%. Supposedly, Ron Paul got 8% – this does not make sense. Why such a variation from the machine counts?

Was it because of the the Chain of Custody Scam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

________________________________________________________________________________

2004 Democratic Primary

Lynn Landes is the publisher of The Landes Report and a freelance journalist who writes about politics, health, and the environment. She’s one of the nation’s leading researchers and analysts on voting integrity issues.
http://www.thelandesreport.com/NewHampshirePrimary.htm

Lynn writes:
“Consider New Hampshire’s much ballyhooed recount system, where election officials claim that they almost never find any problem with the voting machines. But they wouldn’t, would they? After all, their recount system is after the fact, after the polls have closed and ballots have been transported to a central facility. It’s a system that allows plenty of time to substitute real ballots with fraudulent ones. It’s also interesting to note that New Hampshire does not conduct election day audits at the polls, as a rule. Now that’s something that stands a chance of discovering fraud or errors.

And, consider New Hampshire’s own history of producing questionable election results. Remember Howard Dean? In a 2004 article, Questions Mount Over New Hampshire’s Primary, I wrote, “Martin Bento published online an interesting analysis of New Hampshire’s election results based on the voting systems used. It’s been getting a lot of attention.” According to Bento’s analysis of state data, Howard Dean’s loss to John Kerry had a disturbing correlation to how votes were counted. Below are the percentages by which Kerry’s vote exceeded Dean’s, grouped by tallying method”.

VotingTechUsed Margin of Victory of Kerry over Dean
Diebold 58.1%
ES&S 35.0%
Hand 4.7%
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603162038/www.livejournal.com/users/explodedview/1389.html

________________________________________________________________________________

Lynn also discusses the 1988 Republican Primary:

“But, suspicion of vote fraud in New Hampshire’s presidential primary goes back further. In George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, they wrote, “When Bush had arrived in Manchester the night of the disastrous Iowa result, Sununu had promised a nine point victory for Bush in his state. Oddly enough, that turned out to be exactly right. The final result was 38% for Bush, 29% for Dole, 13% for Kemp, 10% for DuPont, and 9% for Robertson. Was Sununu a clairvoyant? Perhaps he was, but those familiar with the inner workings of the New Hampshire quadrennials are aware of a very formidable ballot-box stuffing potential assembled there by the blueblood political establishment. Some observers pointed to pervasive vote fraud in the 1988 New Hampshire primaries, and Pat Robertson, as we shall see, also raised this possibility. The Sununu machine delivered exactly as promised, securing the governor the post of White House chief of staff. Sununu soon became so self-importantly inebriated with the trappings of the imperial presidency as reflected in his travel habits that it was suggested that the state motto appearing on New Hampshire license plates be changed from “Live Free or Die” to “Fly Free or Die.” In any case, for Bush the heartfelt “Thank You, New Hampshire” he intoned after his surprising victory signaled that his machine had weathered its worst crisis.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush22.htm

 

Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor?

Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor?

Richard Charnin

Updated: May 11, 2012

It is about time that the so-called experts who promote overly complex or overly simplistic pre and post election models started to apply the scientific method. They need to do a robust probability and statistical analysis, including the election fraud factor in historical regression factor analyses and polling models.

Election forecasters and political scientists implicitly assume that the recorded vote is equal to the True Vote; they never consider Systemic Election Fraud. But the recorded vote never equals the True Vote. The proof is simple and self-explanatory. According to the US Census, there were 80 million more votes cast then recorded in the 1968-2008 presidential elections. The uncounted votes were a combination of spoiled, provisional and absentee ballots. And the vast majority (70-80%) of them were, not surprisingly, Democratic. Therefore, the recorded vote has never represented the will of the electorate. And the historical election data that is accepted as conventional wisdom is based on uncounted and miscounted votes.

Media pundits and political scientists never question the unscientific and faith-based practice of forcing the exit polls to match the recorded votes. Even when the adjustments are mathematically impossible.

Historical evidence indicates Democratic since 1988, presidential vote shares are always reduced by 3-5%. The Democrats won the average unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by a massive 52-42% margin, but the recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. The True Vote Model confirms the exit polls. The TVM indicates that they won by 53-41%.

There were comparable deviations in senate, congressional and gubernatorial elections.

1988-2008 exit poll and recorded vote data is provided in this link:
Data Reference: The 1988-2008 State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The data source is the Roper site

Prior to 2004, the primary factor in causing the exit poll discrepancies were uncounted ballots in heavily Democratic districts. But in 2002, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) resulted in the installation of thousands of unverifiable, proprietary voting machines vulnerable to computer hacking and malicious coding.

It is often stated that exit polls were accurate in elections prior to 2004 and have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. But it misleading to compare FINAL exit polls prior to 2004 to UNADJUSTED exit polls since. State and national exit polls published in the media are ALWAYS been FORCED to match the RECORDED vote. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

RECORDED votes have deviated sharply from the UNADJUSTED exit polls (and the TRUE VOTE) in EVERY election since 1968. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 elections. The reason why FINAL state and national exit poll exactly matched the RECORDED vote is because they have been forced to. It is standard policy. But the recorded vote has NEVER reflected true voter intent due to documented uncounted and stuffed ballots and maliciously programmed electronic voting machines.

This is how the 2004 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote:
1) Bush Approval
The unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate (76,000 respondents) indicates that 50.3% of respondents approved of Bush’s performance. Kerry won the aggregate by 51.1-47.5%. He also won the unadjusted National Exit Poll, a 13,660 subsample, by 51.7-47.0%. But in the adjusted Final National Exit Poll, Bush approval was increased to 53% to force a match to the recorded vote. Eleven (11) final national pre-election polls gave Bush a 48% approval rating.

2) Party-ID
The unadjusted state exit polls indicated a 38.8-35.1-26.1% Democratic/Republican/Independent Party-ID. But the Final National Exit Poll changed it to to 37-37-26%. What was the rationale? In 2000, Democrats led by 39-35% and in 2004, the vast majority of new voters were registered Democrats. The 37-37 split was not plausible; it was an artificial fudge to force a match to the recorded vote.

This graph shows a near-perfect correlation between Bush’s 2004 unadjusted state exit poll vote shares, approval ratings and Party-ID:
2004 Correlation Analysis

The Ultimate Smoking Gun

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 126 of 274 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the margin of error. The probability is ZERO. The largest discrepancies occurred in 2008 (the MoE was exceeded in 37 states).

Of the 126 exit polls that exceeded the MoE, 123 shifted to the Republican. The probability that this was a random occurrence is ZERO. The red shift from the exit polls to the vote has been in ONE direction and is proof beyond any doubt of systemic election fraud.

The 148 exit poll discrepancies were distributed as follows: 1988:11, 1992:26, 1996:16, 2000:13, 2004:23, 2008:37

The 1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

The TVM allows one to run scenarios over a range of assumptions of prior election voter turnout in the current election and incremental changes in current election (NEP) vote shares:
1988-2008 Presidential True Vote Model

Pre-election Polls

The experts and pundits claim that likely voter (LV) pre-election polls have been very accurate in matching the recorded vote. But they don’t tell you that votes are miscounted in every election. Or that their predictions failed to include the majority of newly registered Democratic voters who did not pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) screen.

They also claim that registered voter polls (RV) don’t reflect actual voter turnout. That is only partially true; not all registered voters turn out. But they don’t tell you that predictions based on RV polls (after allocating undecided voters) closely matched the unadjusted exit polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

What the Pundits Don’t Talk About

They don’t mention that over 80 million votes (mostly Democratic) were uncounted in the 11 elections since 1968.

They don’t mention the 11 million uncounted votes in 1988 which may have cost Dukakis the election.

They have been silent about the six million uncounted votes which cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

They never consider the overwhelming evidence that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen and that Democratic landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008. Or that Senate and Governor races were likely stolen in 2010.

They never mention the massive documented evidence of Election Fraud, yet never stop talking about non-existent Voter Fraud. They talk about voter suppression as if it is the only problem that needs to be addressed.

They refer to the final exit polls for demographic trends. But they won’t tell you that the finals are always forced to match the recorded vote – and therefore all demographic category crosstabs understate the Democratic vote.

They claim that the final 2004 pre-election polls predicted a Bush win. But they don’t tell you that the weighted average predicted a Kerry win. Or that they were based on LV polls before allocating undecided voters and that the RV polls, adjusted for undecided voters, predicted a 51-48% Kerry win.

They claim that Bush won by 3 million votes. But they won’t tell you that to match the recorded vote, the Final 2004 NEP required 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004 – a mathematically impossible 110% turnout.

They claim that in the 2006 midterms, the Democrats won the House by 52-46% (230-205 seats). But they nevert mention that the Democrats won all 120 pre-election Generic Polls. The trend line predicted a 56.4% share – exactly matching the unadjusted National Exit Poll. Approximately 20 House seats were stolen (primarily in FL, OH, NM and IL). The landslide was denied.

They claim that the 2008 pre-election LV polls predicted Obama’s 52.9-45.6% recorded share – a 9.5 million vote margin. But they don’t tell you that RV polls projected that he would win by 57-41%. Or that he had a 58.0% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate share – a 22 million vote margin. Or that he had a massive 61% in the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents).

They don’t mention that in order to match the recorded vote, the Final 2008 NEP required a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters – or 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Or that the Final indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – even though only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004.

They fail to question the 2010 midterms. The Democrats easily won the unadjusted Governor exit polls in Florida and Ohio – but lost the elections. Giannoulias easily won the Illinois Senate exit poll – and lost the election. Sestak lost in Pennsylvania after leading in the exit polls.

They never discuss the evidence which proves that Obama’s 2008 True Vote was reduced by a 5% fraud factor. Considering that the 1988-2008 average Democratic True Vote margin was reduced from 10% to 2% by election fraud, Obama needs 55% just to break even in 2012. He needs another landslide to overcome the fraud factor.

What the Pundits should be doing
- Use votes cast in their analysis (i.e. stipulate uncounted votes).
- Employ reasonable forecast assumptions using both RV and LV polls.
- Indicate that LV polls are a subset of RV polls.
- Note the Likely Voter Cutoff Model’s built-in bias against new voters.
- Allocate undecided and uncounted votes.
- Use voter mortality rates before estimating new and returning voter turnout.
- Use correlation analysis: exit polls, approval ratings, Party-ID.
- Question why exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote.
- Question why the NEP indicates more returning voters than are living.

Historical Overview

- In 1988, Dukakis won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (11,645 respondents) by 49.6-48.4% (11,645 respondents). He won the exit polls in the battleground states by 51.6-47.3%. But Bush won by 7 million recorded votes. There were 11 million mostly Democratic uncounted votes.

- In 1992, Clinton won the unadjusted state exit polls (54,000 respondents) by 18 million votes (47.6-31.7%). He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (15,000 respondents)by 46.3-33.4%. He had 51% in the True Vote Model (TVM). But his recorded margin was just 5.6 million (43.0-37.5%). The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) was forced to match the recorded vote. It implied a 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters. There were 10 million uncounted votes. The landslide was denied.

- In 1996, Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls (70,000 respondents) by 16 million votes (52.6-37.1%). His recorded margin was 8 million (49.2-40.8%). He had 53.6% in the TVM. The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) was forced to match the recorded vote. There were 10 million uncounted votes. The landslide was denied.

- In 2000, Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 6 million votes (50.8-44.4%). He had 51.5% in the TVM. He won the recorded vote by just 540,000. There were 6 million uncounted votes. The election was stolen.

- In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.5%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%, a 6 million vote margin. He had 53.6%, a 10 million vote margin, in the True Vote Model But he lost by 3.0 million recorded votes. There were 4 million uncounted votes. The election was stolen.

To Believe Bush Won Fairly You Must Believe…

- In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.0-40.3%, a 23 million vote margin – a near-exact match to the TVM. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by a whopping 61-37%. Officially, he had 52.9% and won by 9.5 million votes. The landslide was denied.

2004 Election Model Graphs

National Polling 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