RSS

Category Archives: Rebuttals

JFK Witness Deaths: Responding to Warren Commission Apologists

JFK Witness Deaths: Responding to Warren Commission Apologists

Richard Charnin
Dec. 28, 2013
Updated: Jan.5, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Ever since I first posted on the probabilities of JFK-related deaths, Warren Commission (WC) apologists, trolls and various disinformationists have attempted to refute the logic behind the calculation. After all, if it could be proved that the probability of all these deaths was essentially zero, that would mean there was a “cleanup” operation. It would prove a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and a conspiracy by the mainstream media to cover it up.

This is a summary of apologist arguments and my responses.

The basis for WC apologist talking points is a 1967 CIA memo and the 1977-78 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/jfkdeaths.htm

These talking points have been promoted for years by John McAdams, the most prolific “Lone nutter”. He has been totally debunked by Michael T. Griffith: http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm

A 1967 memo from CIA headquarters to station chiefs advised:
Such vague accusations as that “more than 10 people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some rational way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the (Warren) Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses – the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews – and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected.

London Sunday Times and the HSCA
An actuary engaged by the London Sunday times calculated that the odds against 18 material witnesses dying in the three years after the assassination was 100,000 trillion to one.

The Times Legal manager responded to a letter from HSCA:
The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April. Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times’ editorial staff after the first edition–the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have–had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied–correctly–that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter–hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker, Legal Manager.

The HSCA Statistician testified and noted 21 deaths had been analyzed: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hess.htm
Even though the London Sunday Times had not structured its actuarial inquiry properly and, therefore, the 100,000 trillion to 1 odds were invalid, the committee staff looked into the possibility of conducting a valid study, contracting with our own actuarial firms here in the District of Columbia: Edward H. Friend & Co., Towers Perrin, Forster & Co., and the Wyatt Co.

One, to compute valid actuarial statistics, one must be able to determine to a reasonable degree of specificity, the universe of individuals to which the specific group is being compared. In other words, we would have to determine the total number of individuals who exist in each of the categories into which those individuals who have mysteriously died, fall. This means that we would need to establish the number of individuals who in any manner could be considered witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, the number of individuals who had any contact with Oswald or Ruby or with Ruby’s nightclubs, the number of individuals who professed to have material knowledge of the case or of the major figures in the case, all news reporters who had expressed interest, taken interviews or investigated the case, and all Members of Congress who sought to introduce legislation concerning the investigation of the case. This, as you can imagine, would have been an impossible task.

As a result of the above, probability analysis confirming the actuary’s odds has been attacked by WC apologists who also cite books by Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner. The following are talking points used by critics of the JFK witness probability analysis – and my response to them:

- The London Sunday Times actuary’s result was invalid (see Legal Manager and HSCA)
I confirmed the actuary’s odds based on the 0.000207 weighted unnatural mortality rate applied to 459 witnesses. The Times did not show the actuary’s calculation, and did not mention that 13 of the 18 deaths were unnatural. No one at the Times remembered the actuary’s name and there was no record of it?

- The universe of witnesses is unknowable, therefore the probabilities cannot be calculated.
That is untrue. We know how many testified at the WC. We also know the approximate number of witnesses sought by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison in the Clay Shaw trial, Church Senate Intelligence and the HSCA investigations.

- Bugliosi noted that that the Warren Commission Index has 2479 names and claimed a Metropolitan Life actuary calculated 1 in 1.2 odds.
But how come George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and other non-witnesses are included in the Index? And how come, just like the HSCA, Bugliosi’s actuary did not consider unnatural death mortality rates in the calculation? Even assuming 2479 witnesses, the probability of 78 unnatural deaths from 1964-78 is a very conservative 2.7E-13 (less than 1 in a trillion) assuming the average national unweighted mortality rate (.000818). The correct solution is E-44 (less than 1 in a trillion trillion trillion) assuming the JFK-weighted unnatural rate (0.000253).

- There were 25,000 FBI interviews. Many would have died.
Where is the list? How many were relevant? The book Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination includes 1400+ names. But, again, let’s assume 25,000 for the sake of argument. The probability of 80 homicides in 15 years is less than 1 in a trillion.

- The mortality rates were not age-adjusted.
Natural causes of death (heart attack, cancer, other) were age-adjusted. But 78 of the 120 deaths were ruled unnatural and were obviously not age-adjusted. A bullet does not know the age of it’s target. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html

- It is incorrect to assume that the witnesses were connected to the assassination.
It is not an assumption. Sixty-four (64) of the 120 JFK-related individuals JFK Calc either testified or were sought to testify in four investigations. That makes them connected by definition. The other 56 were were not called by design or because they died suspiciously.

- The witness list is self-selected (not random).
Of course, the list of 120 suspicious deaths is selected from an estimated universe of 1400 material witnesses. In a group of 1400 selected at random, just 2 homicides would normally have been expected in 15 years. But there were 77 official unnatural JFK-related deaths (34 homicides, 24 accidents and 16 suicides, 3 unknown). The number of deaths ruled as accidents, suicides, heart attacks and sudden cancers was far beyond the statistical expectation based on corresponding mortality rates. A reasonable estimate is that there were at least 80 homicides.

- The only reason the witnesses are on the list is because they died.
That is just ridiculous for a number of reasons. As mentioned above, 64 of 120 were called to testify. They are not on the list “because they died”. They are on it because their deaths were unnatural and suspicious. They were part of a much larger group of 1400+ who were connected to the assassination. Eventually, all will die. But only 18 would have been expected to die unnaturally from 1964-78. But there were at least 78 official unnatural deaths. The true number is closer to 100.

- Witness occupations were hazardous.
Is that why 7 top FBI officials died within a six month period in 1977 just before they were due to testify at HSCA? Assuming that 20 FBI were called to testify, the probability of at least 7 deaths (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents) in a 6 month period is 1 in 200 trillion!

- The deaths occurred in high crime rate locations. Yes, that is true. FIFTY-ONE of the 120 in the JFK Calc spreadsheet were in Dallas. HOW DO THE LONE NUTTERS EXPLAIN THAT? THEEY WON’T AND THEY CAN’T – BECAUSE THAT STAT TELLS IT ALL.

In 1967, the Dallas population was 700,000. There were 130 murders (a 0.00019 homicide rate). Therefore a reasonable is that there were 400 Dallas murders in the period 1964-66. The Dallas homicide rate was triple the national rate (0.000059). At least 15 Ruby associates (7.5%) out of an estimated 200 contacts were murdered in 1964-66. If 7.5% of Dallas residents were murdered, that would extrapolate to 50,000 murders. Assuming 200 Ruby contacts, they were 400 times (0.075/0.00019) more likely to be murdered than the general Dallas population. Assuming 1000 contacts, they were 80 times more likely.

Using the Dallas rate, these are the probabilities of 15 Ruby contact deaths:
4.9E-27 for 200 contacts (1 in 200 trillion trillion);
9.4E-17 for 1000 contacts (1 in 10,000 trillion). View Ruby contacts in column E. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=55

Assume the universe of 1400 JFK-related witnesses in “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Officially 35 were murdered from 1964-78 (actually there were about 80). Given the National average homicide rate (0.000084) for the 15 year period, the probability of 35 homicides is 8E-33. To satisfy the WC apologists who claimed the deaths took place in high crime areas, let’s triple the national rate. The probability rises to 1.1E-17 (1 in 80,000 trillion). But that still will not satisfy the Lone Nutters, so lets double the rate – to six times the National average. The probability goes up to 1 in 500 million.

- The analysis has not been peer-reviewed.
This is not a theoretical exercise. it is based on the official and estimated expected number of witness unnatural and natural deaths and corresponding mortality statistics. We know the actual number of unnatural deaths. We only need to calculate the expected number based on the witness universe, time period and average mortality rates. The actual and expected numbers are input to the Poisson probability spreadsheet function. That’s all there is to it. There is nothing to peer-review. It’s just simple math. In any case, the data and the calculations are available for anyone to look at online. So far, no one has even tried to refute the analysis.

- It has been said that I’m an amateur conspiracy “buff”, not an actuary or statistician.
That ad-hominem will not stand. I have a lifetime of experience as a professional quantitative software developer of computer models for aerospace, defense, Wall Street investment banking, foreign banks and major U.S. consumer goods manufacturers.

- Even if the odds are 1 in a trillion, it’s still possible that the deaths could have occurred by chance and there is no connection to the assassination.
This was a serious response from an individual who was obviously math-phobic. I got a big laugh out of that one.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 28, 2013 in JFK, Rebuttals

 

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

Warren Commission Apologists and Trolls: Feeble Attempts to Debunk JFK Probability Analysis

Warren Commission Apologists and Trolls: Feeble Attempts to Debunk JFK Probability Analysis

Richard Charnin
May 29,2013
Updated Oct.25, 2013

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

I posted a JFK Witness death analysis on the JFK Forum: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/9nU_KiM-2E0

John McAdams, the most prolific Warren Commission apologist and lone nutter replied:
“Look . . . you are wasting our time here unless you do the following: Purge your list of people who were *not* any sort of witnesses. Just the fact that buffs *think* somebody might have something to do with the assassination does not make them a witness. Indeed, the majority of people on your list are *not* witnesses”.

If you wanted to approach this seriously (and you clearly don’t) you would take some *defined* population (say, everybody who testified before the Warren Commission) and see how many of those died within a defined time span. You would also have to do some things that a real actuary would know about, such as taking into account the ages of the people on the list.

I glanced at your other blog posts. In spite of the fact that I specialize in voter behavior, your treatment of this issue makes me uninterested in looking at anything else on your blog. You simply don’t know how to approach these issues.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
……………………………………………….

John McAdams, you have just proved why you are the premier, quintessential Lone Nutter and Warren Commission shill. I have approached this subject very seriously since Nov. 22, 1963. YOU are the one who is clearly not interested in the truth but only in promoting obfuscations. Your full range of talking points have been totally debunked by Michael T. Griffith: http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm

This pathetic “analysis” is further proof of your incompetence: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic2.htm . I will now expose your ignorance in the application of probability theory in the analysis of JFK material witness deaths.

Point number 1:
If you read my post(s) you would have seen that I calculate unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren Commission witnesses over 1, 3 and 15 year periods – and a lot more.

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

Point number 2:
It’s 2013 and you still don’t understand that a material witness is one who had a connection to the assassination, even if he or she was not called to testify. The witnesses you want to “purge” from the database are very material. There are eyewitnesses, there are material witnesses who have inside knowledge, and there are witnesses who were called to testify at the Warren Commission, the Garrison-Shaw trial, Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Many of them were so material that they were eliminated before they had a chance to testify.

I could go on and on. McAdams, you are not paying attention. I gave you links to the JFK Calc spreadsheet. What is the point of debating when you IGNORE the evidence presented on Warren Commission witness deaths?http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/jfk-assassination-a-probability-analysis-of-warren-commission-witness-unnatural-deaths/

Let’s consider the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times. He/she calculated 100,000 trillion to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in 3 years. Warren Commission apologists often quote the Times Legal Manager’s letter to the HSCA in dismissing the odds (see below). The vagueness of the letter was a clever ruse to distract from the actuary’s assumptions and methodology – which were never stated. Therefore the calculation was NEVER actually refuted. The actuary’s calculation is confirmed assuming 459 witnesses and 0.000207 weighted overall mortality rate.

Warren Commission
The HSCA statistician claimed that the universe of witnesses was impossible to determine and therefore the calculation was not valid. That is absolutely untrue. There were 552 Warren Commission witnesses and approximately 5600 other material witnesses who were called to testify at the Garrison/Shaw trial, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the HSCA (see below).

1964-1966: There was a 1 in 44 BILLION probability of 10 unnatural deaths among the 552 Warren Commission witnesses who testified.

1964-1978: There was a 1 in 60 BILLION probability of 18 unnatural deaths among the 552 Warren Commission witnesses who testified. The probability of 18 homicides is 1 in 8 MILLION TRILLION.

Unnatural and Suspicious Material Witness Deaths Database

At least 83 of 1400 material witnesses died unnaturally in 1964-78: 49 homicides, 24 accidents, 7 suicides, 3 unknown. Another 36 deaths were suspiciously timed heart attacks, sudden cancers, illnesses or unknown causes. Yet you claim there is nothing to see here; you keep spreading disinformation that Oswald was a Lone Nut and the Warren Commission conducted an honest investigation.

Given the conservative 0.000825 average 1964-78 national unnatural mortality rate, the probability of 83 unnatural deaths occurring by chance is E-30 (less than 1 in a TRILLION TRILLION). Given the 0.000235 JFK-witness weighted unnatural mortality rate, the probability is E-70 (less than 1 in a TRILLION^5). The probability of 49 homicides is E-52 (less than 1 in trillion^4).


Four JFK Investigations: at least 62 convenient deaths among 1100 witnesses called to testify

You ignore the fact that 62 of the 118 material witnesses listed in the database were called to testify in four investigations Thirty testified at the 1964 Warren Commission, the others at the 1969 Garrison/Shaw Trial, 1975 Senate Intelligence hearings and 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations. The probability of 38 UNNATURAL deaths among the 1100 is 1 in 20 TRILLION TRILLION. You cannot argue that the investigation witnesses called to testify were not connected to the assassination. They were relevant enough to be called to testify. BUT RELEVANCE IS A MOOT POINT AS FAR AS THE PROBABILITIES ARE CONCERNED.

Given approximately 1100 witnesses called to testify, all that matters are the number who died unnaturally and their cause of death. The Poisson distribution function for calculating probabilities requires the expected number of deaths (based on mortality rate, number of witnesses and time period) and the actual number of unnatural deaths. It does not include a relevance variable. This is the clincher: Seven (7) top FBI officials died just before their scheduled HSCA testimony in June-November 1977. But as a dedicated naysayer, you would surely call it just another coincidence.

You have nothing left, so you are forced to deny 70 material witnesses, including Dorothy Kilgallen, Florence Smith, William Pitzer, Rose Cheramie, Lisa Howard, Nancy Tyler, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Mary Sherman, Guy Bannister, Jack Zangetty, Grant Stockdale, Gary Underhill, etc, just because they did not testify? And you call yourself an expert? The objections you guys throw up are laughable.

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.

The London Sunday Times Actuary
At the end of the 1973 film Executive Action it was noted that “In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died – six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes. An actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated the odds of 18 material witnesses dying within three years of the JFK assassination as 1 in 100,000 TRILLION”.

In response to a letter from the HSCA, the Sunday Times Legal Manager wrote:
“There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: it was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied -correctly – that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter – hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize. None of the editorial staff involved in the story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened, you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material”.

No, the actuary got it right. That’s why he (or she) was a certified actuary. No one can recall the actuary’s name? And it’s hardly material? In fact, Whitaker misrepresented what is essentially a simple mathematical problem: to determine the probability of a given number of unnatural deaths over relevant time intervals within a given population group.

Whitaker claimed the actuary was asked to calculate the odds of 15 deaths in a given period. But there were actually at least 42 unnatural deaths in the three years. The Sunday Times did not specify unnatural deaths. The probability is E-55.

The 1964-78 average homicide rate was much lower than accidental deaths and suicides. An analysis comparing reported unnatural JFK witness deaths to the expected number is not nearly as dramatic as comparing homicides. Nationally, homicides comprised 10% of unnatural deaths. But there were at least 49 (59%) homicides among the 83 JFK unnatural deaths. If the analysis was restricted to homicides, the mathematical proof would be simpler and more powerful.

Lone-nutter Red-herrings, Canards and Straw men
1. Domingo Benavides? Changed his testimony after his brother Eddy was killed by gunshot.
2. Age of witnesses? Irrelevant, ridiculous argument. Homicides, accidents and suicides are irrespective of age. Duh.
3. Universe of material witnesses? Realistically, there were approximately 1,400.
4. Witnesses not random? Of course not. They are material witnesses who died unnaturally.
5. Relevance of witnesses? Sixty-two were relevant enough to be called to testify
6. Use of Poisson Distribution to calculate the probabilities?
7. London Times actuary? Calculations confirmed. And at least 47 suspicious deaths in the three year period
8. London Times Legal Manager misstated the problem? The actuary solved it. That’s why he is an actuary.
9. No one at the Times could recall the actuary’s name?
10. HSCA statistician analysis? Did not consider 20 HSCA prospective witness deaths – and scores of others.

HSCA Obfuscation

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) claimed that the number of material witnesses was unknowable and dismissed the calculation as invalid. The HSCA made a number of misleading statements and factual omissions. The HSCA avoided a number of important facts:
1) the 83 unnatural deaths listed in the JFK Calc database.
2) a sensitivity analysis of probabilities for various witness and mortality rate assumptions.
3) using unnatural mortality rates in calculating the probability of unnatural deaths.
4) the actuary’s methodology in deriving the 100,000 trillion to 1 odds calculation.
5) the POISSON distribution function to calculate probabilities.
6) calculating the probability of 18 Warren Commission unnatural deaths (552 witnesses): ZERO
7) comparison of Warren Commission witness homicide vs. the national rate.
8) 62 deaths of witnesses called to testify (Warren, Garrison, Senate, HSCA).

25,000 Witnesses?
Warren Commission apologists claim that 25,000 witnesses were interviewed is a gross exaggeration. How many had inside information? How many were material? Where is the list? According to the reference “Who’s Who In the JFK Assassination” there were approximately 1400 material witnesses were connected in any way to the assassination. The spreadsheet database includes 115 material witness deaths. Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, then given the 0.000062 homicide rate the probability is 1 in 500 BILLION that there would be 26 homicides in the 3 years following the assassination.

I began analyzing JFK witness death probabilities in 2003. This was my initial post on the Democratic Underground. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×6304

The analysis has been greatly enhanced over the last 6 months and is referenced in “Hit List” by Richard Belzer and David Wayne. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/

You want …
the witnesses?
their relevance?
the investigations they were called to testify in?
their bios?
their Warren Commission testimony?
the calculations for various assumed times, deaths, mortality rates?
the mathematical proof of a conspiracy?

It’s all in the JFK Calc spreadsheet database.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on May 29, 2013 in JFK, Rebuttals

 

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

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Nov.4,2013

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

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. View the state and national numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15

The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

A Facebook discussion: https://www.facebook.com/richard.charnin/posts/735042649871085

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

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the adjustments made to the 2004 National Exit Poll crosstabs to force a match to the recorded vote.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. The Final adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to indicate that he had a 53% approval rating. He had just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unajusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
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) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
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) http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

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

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, 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.

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.

Are you asking us to ignore a) the final adjusted exit polls which are ALWAYS forced to match the recorded vote or b) the unadjusted, preliminary state and national exit polls? If it’s (a), then you must believe that election fraud is systemic since the pristine, 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.
NS
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.

NS
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.

NS
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.

NS
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?

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

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.

NS
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.

NS
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?

NS
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.

NS
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.

NS
10. 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

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 17, 2012 in Media, Rebuttals

 

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

Vote Swing vs. Exit Poll Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope, no election fraud” Canard

Swing vs. Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope, no election fraud” Canard

Richard Charnin
April 4, 2012

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/edit

After the 2004 election, exit poll naysayers claimed that the near-zero correlation between Swing (the change in Bush vote share from 2000 to 2004) and the 2004 Exit Poll Red shift “kills the fraud argument”.

The pollsters provided a swing vs. red-shift scatterchart of 1250 precincts. They pointed to the flat (zero slope) regression line as evidence that the election was not fraudulent and implied that a positively sloped regression would have indicated fraud. But they were wrong in using 2000 and 2004 recorded vote data as the baseline in calculating swing. If they had used the 2000 and 2004 unadjusted exit polls, it would have shown that the 2004 election was fraudulent – by their definition. The pollsters used bogus recorded vote data to prove there was no fraud in 2004 – a circular argument if there ever was one.

http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/3831/swingshift2zb.jpg

There were nearly six million uncounted votes in 2000 and four million in 2004. That fact alone is proof that the True Vote differred from the recorded vote in both elections.

Using recorded vote swing as the basis to “prove” that the 2004 election was fraud-free was misleading disinformation. It was meant to cast doubt on the state and national exit polls which indicated that Kerry had 51-52%.

However, if unadjusted 2000 and 2004 state exit polls are used as a proxy for the True Vote, there was a strong positive correlation. Swing is now defined as the CHANGE in the 2-party unadjusted state exit poll share from the PREVIOUS election. Red-shift is the DIFFERENCE between the 2-party unadjusted state exit poll and the recorded share in the CURRENT election.

In the 2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report, the pollsters “Zero slope = No fraud” argument was refuted their by their own data. The WPE (Within Precinct Error) correlation matrix showed a relatively high 0.48 correlation for 2000-2004. The correlation was a much lower .05 for 1996-2000.

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

The E-M WPE correlations table below indicates that the 1988, 1992 and 2004 elections (Bush 1 and 2 were incumbents) were fraudulent. But unadjusted exit poll data shows that the 1996 and 2000 elections were fraudulent as well (Clinton did significantly better than his recorded margin). In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats led the average unadjusted exit polls by a solid 52-42%, but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy.

Edison-Mitofsky WPE Correlations
(2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report)
Year 2000 1996 1992 1988
2004 0.48 0.19 0.35 0.30
2000 …… 0.05 0.12 0.23
1996 ….. ……. 0.15 0.26
1992 …. ……. ……. 0.29

1992-2008 SWING VS. RED SHIFT
The analysis uses unadjusted 1988-2008 state exit polls. The average (bogus) recorded vote correlation was .01. The average unadjusted exit poll correlation was 0.47.

SwingCalc 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Recorded.. 0.09 0.06 0.20 -0.16 -0.14
Exit Poll…. 0.65 0.10 0.57 0.62 0.38

Swing and red shift calculations are shown in these tables and graphs:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=20

RECORDED VOTE PREMISE FALLACY: “RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER” AND “FALSE RECALL”
The exit pollster’s initial explanation for the discrepancies was that non-response bias skewed the exit polls – the so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr). When that argument was refuted, they tried “Swing vs. Red shift”. Finally, “False Recall” was promoted to explain the impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters implied by the 2004 National Exit Poll. In each case, the recorded votes were used as the baseline, rather than total votes cast. Uncounted votes and an estimate of the True Vote were ignored.

To use a fraudulent recorded vote as the basis for calculating swing and then claim that the near-zero correlation “kills the fraud argument” is a logical fallacy. Elections can be fraudulent or fraud-free regardless of the correlation. The scatter graphs below kill the naysayer 2004 Swing/ Red shift “no slope, no fraud” canard.

1988-2008 UNADJUSTED PRESIDENTIAL STATE EXIT POLLS: DEMOCRATS WIN BY 52-42%
In the 1988-2008 elections, Democratic presidential candidates did nearly 8% better in unadjusted exit polls (52-42%) than in the recorded vote (48-46%). The discrepancies were due to a combination of uncounted votes and electronic vote switching. The uncounted vote rate trend has declined, but electronic vote switching has more than taken up the slack.

FORBIDDEN: RAW PRECINCT EXIT POLL DATA
Unfortunately, the National Election Pool (NEP) mainstream media consortium has never released unadjusted precinct exit poll data. Their transparent claim is the need for exit poll respondent confidentiality. It’s a misleading canard; exit poll respondents do not reveal personal information.

In their 2004 report, the pollsters provided average Within Precinct Error (WPE) statistics for the 1988-2004 exit polls. That report provided more than enough historical information to hoist the NEP, the pollsters and the naysayers on their own petard.

1992-2004 SWING V. RED SHIFT (WPE) CONSOLIDATED GRAPH
True and Recorded Vote Swing v. Red shift (based on 238 state exit polls).
http://richardcharnin.com/TrueVoteElectionCalculator_19922004_image001

In 1992 the WPE was 5.4. The correlations: 0.21 Recorded Vote and 0.40 True Vote. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: -0.20. There were nearly 11 million uncounted votes.
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_1992_image001.gif

In 1996 the WPE was 1.9. The Recorded Vote correlation was nearly zero (.02). The True Vote correlation was 0.43. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.10. There were nearly 10 million uncounted votes.
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_1996_image001.gif

In 2000 the exit poll discrepancies (2.0 WPE) were much lower than in 2004. But the 0.38 Recorded vote correlation was higher than 2004. The True Vote correlation was 0.66. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.57. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_2000_image001.gif

In 2004, the WPE was 7.4. Recorded Vote correlation: 0.11. True Vote correlation was 0.56. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.62. There were close to 4 million uncounted votes.
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_2004_image001.gif

In 2008, the WPE was at its highest: 10.3. The regression lines diverged, as indicated by the correlation ratios: -0.38 for Recorded Vote vs. 0.42 for the True Vote. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.60.
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_2008_image001.gif

In 2004, the average Battleground State Recorded vote correlation was 0.45; it was near zero in Democratic and Republican states. But the exit poll discrepancies (WPE) in the Democratic states were higher than the Battleground states – another refutation of the premise.

THE BATTLEGROUND STATES
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_BG_image001.gif
Democrat
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_Dem_image001.gif
Republican
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShift_Rep_image001.gif

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

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

-Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (exactly matching the True Vote Model).
-Kerry won the state exit polls by 51-47.6% and had 51.7% in the National (2% lower than the True Vote Model).
-Gore won the states by 50-45%, a 6 million vote margin. It was a close match to the TVM).
-Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in battleground states by 51-47%. He lost the recorded vote by 53-45% (7 million votes).

http://richardcharnin.com/SwingVsRedshift1992to2004.htm

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 2, 2011 in Election Myths, Rebuttals

 

Tags: , , , ,

The Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: Closing the Book on the returning Gore voter “False Recall” Myth

The Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: Closing the Book on the returning Gore voter “False Recall” Myth

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Oct. 17, 2011

“False recall” was the final argument promoted by exit poll naysayers to explain away the mathematically impossible 43/37% returning Bush/Gore voter mix in the 2004 Final National Exit Poll (NEP). It was an attempt to cast doubt on the preliminary NEP and the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (Kerry won by 51-48%). It was a last-ditch attempt to maintain the fiction that Bush really did win fairly and that the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls “behaved badly”. The bottom line: exit polls should not be trusted (or even used) here in the U.S. – but they work fine in far away places like Ukraine and Georgia.

“False recall” stated that the mathematically impossible Final NEP mix was due to returning Gore voters who had the temerity of misstating their past vote to the exit pollsters, claiming they actually voted for Bush. This strange behavior was apparently due to faulty memory – a “slow-drifting fog” unique to Gore voters and/or a desire to be associated with Bush, the official “winner” of the 2000 election. The fact that he actually lost by 540,000 recorded votes was dismissed as irrelevant.

The unadjusted 2004 NEP on the Roper website should finally put “false recall” to eternal rest. Of the 13,660 respondents, 7064 (51.7%) said they voted for Kerry, 6414 (47.0%) for Bush and 182 (1.3%) for other third-parties. The NEP is a subset of unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents). The weighted average of the aggregate state polls indicated that Kerry was a 51.1-47.5% winner.

1988-2008 State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls vs. Recorded Votes

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

But what did the respondents really say about how they voted in 2000? Of the 3,182 respondents who were asked, 1,222 (38.4%) said they voted for Gore, 1,257 (39.5%) said Bush, 119 (3.75%) said Other. The remaining 585 (18.4%) were either first-timers or others who did not vote in 2000. When the actual Bush/Gore 39.5/38.4% returning voter mix and the 12:22am preliminary NEP shares are used to calculate the total vote shares, Kerry has 51.7% – exactly matching the unadjusted NEP. But Kerry must have done better than that. The unadjusted 2000 exit poll indicated that Gore won by 5-6 million, so there had to be more returning Gore voters than Bush voters in 2004.

Although there is no evidence that Gore voters came to love Bush (even after he stole the 2000 election), or that returning Gore voters were more forgetful and dishonest than Bush voters, the “false recall” canard has been successful in keeping the “bad exit poll” myth alive. Such is the power of the mainstream media.

“False recall” was the equivalent of the famous “Hail Mary” touchdown pass. It followed the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) and “Swing vs. Red-shift” arguments, both of which had been refuted (see the links below).

Since unadjusted 2004 NEP data was not provided in the mainstream media, “false recall” was a possibility, however remote and ridiculous the premise. It was a very thin reed that has been surprisingly resilient. Apparently it still is to Bill Clinton, Al Franken and Michael Moore. Not to mention the mainstream “liberal” media who continue to maintain the fiction that Bush really did win.

We now have absolute proof that in order to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to adjust the NEP returning voter mix from the (already adjusted) 12:22am timeline; the 41/39% mix was changed to an impossible 43/37%. But they had to do more than just that; the pollsters also had to inflate the 12:22am Bush shares of new and returning voters to implausible levels.

The earlier proof that the returning voter mix was adjusted in the Final NEP (even though it was mathematically impossible) to match the recorded vote is confirmed by the data itself. Now, with the actual responses to the question “Who did you vote for in 2000″, there is no longer any question as to whether Gore voters forgot or lied or were in a “slow moving” fog. The “pristine” results show that the actual Bush/Gore returning voter mix (39.5/38.4%) differs substantially from the artificial, mathematically impossible Final NEP (43/37%) mix.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

This is irrefutable evidence that the Final NEP is not a true sample. Of course, we knew this all along. The exit pollsters admit it but they don’t mention the fact that it’s standard operating procedure to force ALL exit polls to match the recorded vote. This is easily accomplished by adjusting returning voter turnout from the previous election to get the results to “fit”. Of course, the mainstream media political pundits never talk about it. So how would you know?

Political sites such as CNN, NY Times and realclearpolitics.com still display the 2004 Final National Exit poll and perpetuate the fiction that Bush won. But it’s not just the 2004 election. ALL FINAL exit polls published by the mainstream media (congressional and presidential) are forced to match the recorded vote. Unadjusted exit polls don’t “behave badly” – but the adjusted Finals sure do.

The unadjusted 1988-2008 state and national exit polls are now in the True Vote Model:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=34

False recall followed the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) and “Swing vs. Red-shift” arguments (see links below), both of which have been refuted.
http://richardcharnin.com/2004FalseRecallUnadjEP.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/FalseRecallRebuttal.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/ConversationAboutFalseRecall.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/FalseRecallPetard.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingVsRedshift1992to2004.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/SwingRedShiftHoisted.htm

The Final NEP is mathematically impossible since the number of returning Bush voters implied by the 43% weighting is 52.6 million (122.3 million votes were recorded in 2004). Bush only had 50.46 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died, therefore the number of returning Bush voters must have been less than 48 million. Assuming 98% turnout, there were 47 million returning Bush voters, 5.6 million fewer than implied by the Final NEP.

Based on 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry wins by 10m votes with 53.2% – assuming equal 98% turnout of returning Bush and Gore voters. He wins by 7 million given 98/90% Bush/Gore turnout. Total votes cast in 2000 and 2004 are used to calculate returning and new voters.

The Kerry vote share trend was a constant 51% at the 7:33pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047) time lines. Kerry gained 1085 votes and Bush 1025 from 7:33pm to 12:22am. Third-parties declined by 90 due to the 4% to 3% change in share of the electorate.

False recall is disproved in a number of ways.

1. False recall is based on a 3168 subset of the Final NEP 13660 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2000. But all 13660 were asked who they JUST voted for in 2004.

2. In the preliminary 12:22am NEP of 13047 respondents, approximately 3025 of the 3168 were asked how they voted in 2000. This estimate was derived by applying the same 95.4% percentage(13047/13660) to the 3168. The weighted result indicated that returning Bush voters comprised 41% (50.1m) of the electorate. The Final NEP “Voted in 2000″ cross tab (and all other cross tabs) was forced to match the recorded vote. This required that 43% (52.6m) of the electorate had to be returning Bush voters. The increase in the returning Bush 2000 voter share of the 2004 electorate (from 41% at 12:22am to 43% in the Final) was clearly impossible since it was based on a mere 143 (25% of 613) additional respondents.

a) There was an impossible late switch in respondent totals. Between 7:33pm and 12:22am, the trend was consistent: Kerry gained 254 votes, Bush 239. Third-parties declined by 13. But between 12:22am and the Final, Kerry’s total declined by 13, Bush gained 182 and third party lost 26.

b) It was also impossible that returning Bush voters would increase from 41% to 43% (122) and returning Gore voters would decline from 39% to 37% (8). Regardless, the Final 43/37% split was mathematically impossible. It implied there were 5.6 million more returning Bush voters than could have voted, assuming that 47 (98%) of the 48 million who were alive turned out.

c) The increase in Bush’s share of new voters from 41% to 45% (+31) was impossible; there were just 24 additional new voters. Kerry lost 2.

d) The changes in the Gender demographic were impossible. The Kerry trend was consistent at the 11027 and 13047 respondent time lines. Kerry gained 1085 and Bush 1025. Third-parties declined by 90.

e) There was an impossible shift to Bush among the final 613 respondents (from 13047 to 13660). Kerry’s total declined by 99, while Bush gained 706. Third-parties gained 6. That could not have happened unless weights and vote shares were adjusted by a human. In other words, it could not have been the result of an actual sample.

3. False recall assumes that 43/37% was a sampled result. But we have just shown that it is mathematically impossible because a) it implies there were 5.6 million more returning Bush voters than could have voted in 2004 and b) the 41/39% split at 12:22am could not have changed to 43/37% in the Final with just 143 additional respondents in the “Voted 2000″ category.

4. The exit pollsters claim that it is standard operating procedure to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote by a) adjusting the returning Bush/Gore voter mix to an impossible 43/37% and b) simultaneously increasing the Bush shares of returning Bush, Gore and new voters to implausible levels using impossible adjustments.

5. Just reviewing the time line, it is obvious that the exit pollsters do in fact adjust weights and vote shares to force a match the recorded vote. It’s SOP. But it immediately invalidates the naysayer claim that the 43/37 split was due to Gore voter false recall. No, it was due to exit poll data manipulation.

6. Which is more believable: a) that the exit pollsters followed the standard procedure of forcing the poll to match the vote, or b) that at least 8% more returning Gore voters claimed they voted for Bush in 2000 than returning Bush voters claimed they voted for Gore?

7. As indicated above, there was a maximum number of returning Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004: the ones who were still living. So the 43/37% split is not only impossible, it is also irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the returning voters said regarding their 2000 vote. We already know the four-year voter mortality rate (5%) and maximum LIVING voter turnout (98%).

8. False recall assumes that the returning voter mix is a sampled result. But the 4% increase in differential between returning Bush and Gore voters (from 2% to 6%) is impossible since the total number of respondents increased by just 143 (from 3025 to 3168).

9. The false recall claim is based on NES surveys of 500-600 respondents that indicate voters misstate past votes. But the reported deviations are based on the prior recorded vote – not the True Vote. There have been an average of 7 million net uncounted votes in each of the last eleven elections. The majority (70-80%) were Democratic. In 2000, there were 5.4 million. When measured against the True Vote (based on total votes cast, reduced by mortality and voter turnout), the average deviations are near zero. Therefore, the NES respondents told the truth about their past vote.

10. The 2006 and 2008 Final National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote with impossible 49/43% and 46/37% returning Bush/Kerry voter percentages. The 2008 Final required 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. These anomalies are just additional proof that false recall is totally bogus – a final “Hail Mary” pass to divert, confuse and cover-up the truth. The exit pollsters just did what they are paid to do.

 
 

Tags: , , ,

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

April 8, 2012

This is an updated response to Mark Lindeman’s “TruthIsAll FAQ”, written in 2006. It is a summary version of the original which includes 2008 election results. This is the original Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Mark Lindeman is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Bard College, NY.

Since the last update, unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls have been made available on the Roper UConn site. I created a spreadsheet database of 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls. It contains detailed polling and recorded vote statistics organized for each election in separate worksheets. Graphics and tabular analysis worksheets were also included.

The data shows a consistent pattern of massive one-sided state and national exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote and further debunks the arguments presented by Lindeman in the original TIA FAQ.

For example, the Democrats won the 1988-2008 state unadjusted exit polls and the National Exit Polls by an identical 52-42%. The average recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. The 8% average margin discrepancy is much bigger than we had been led to believe by the exit pollsters prior to the Roper listing. The 2004 exit poll 7% discrepancy was not unique. In fact, 2008 was much worse. The aggregate state exit poll discrepancy was 11%; the National Exit Poll a whopping 17%.

In every election, the Roper data shows that the final, official National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with no change in the number of unadjusted exit poll respondents.

Before the Roper data became available, I created the 1988-2008 Presidential True Vote Model. The unadjusted exit polls closely matched and confirmed the model. Note that unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote do not include disenfranchised voters, the great majority of whom are Democratic minorities.

have recently written two books on election fraud analysis: Matrix of Deceit: Forcing-Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts and Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll

Voters today are much more aware of systemic election fraud than they were in 2004 when the mainstream media hoodwinked millions into believing that Bush won three million vote “mandate”. The media prepares the public with pre-election polls that are biased in favor of the GOP. After the election, the National Election Pool (NEP) funds the exit pollsters who always the numbers in order to match the (bogus) recorded votes – even if the adjustments are mathematically impossible.

It should now be obvious to anyone paying attention that the lock down on serious election fraud analysis proves media complicity in the fraud.

It is a long running media myth that the 2000 election was close. Bush won Florida (and therefore the election) by 537 official votes. But pre-election and unadjusted exit polls indicated that Al Gore easily won the state. Gore won nationally by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). He won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%. The exit polls confirmed the True Vote Model – and vice-versa.

In 2004, unadjusted state and national exit polls indicate that John Kerry won by 5-6 million votes with 51.0% and 51.7%, respectively. The True Vote Model indicated he won by 10 million votes with a 53.6% share. Serious election researchers agree that the 2004 election was stolen. Further Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide is a complete analysis of the 2004 election.

In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gave them control of congress, but the landslide was denied; the unadjusted exit polls (56.4%) indicate they did much better than the official 53%. The statistical evidence indicates that election fraud cut the 12% Democratic landslide margin in half, costing them 10-20 House seats. The landslide was denied.

In 2008, Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes with a 52.9% share. The unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) indicate that he had 58.0%. He had a whopping 61% share in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents).

The post-election True Vote Model used Final National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares and calculated a feasible returning 2004 voter mix: Obama had 58.0% and won by 23 million votes. The landslide was denied.

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ – Updated for 2008

Mark Lindeman wrote the TruthIsAll FAQ in late 2006. Mark has been posting non-stop since 2005 trying to debunk the work of scores of independent election analysts who cite pre-election and exit polls as powerful evidence that Kerry easily won the True Vote in 2004 and that the 2006 Democratic landslide was denied by election fraud.

Mark posts as “On the Other Hand” on the Democratic Underground and “Hudson Valley Mark” on Daily Kos (as well as on numerous other forums). He quickly responds to posts that analyze pre-election and exit polls – and invariably attempts to debunk them if they are presented as indicators of election fraud. But it’s a good thing that Mark wrote the FAQ. By doing so, he provides a snapshot summary of the polling debates which are still taking place on various election forums. And the TIA FAQ provides a forum for presenting new and updated evidence of systemic election fraud based on pre-election and post-election polling analysis.

In June 2006 Farhad Manjoo, writing in Salon, wrote a hit piece rebuttal to the RFK Jr. Rolling Stone article Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Farhad claimed to have consulted with Lindeman as a primary advisor in writing the piece. The article was immediately debunked by a number of well-respected election researchers. They noticed a number of statistical and logical errors.

In January 2007, I wrote the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ along with a detailed statistical analysis.

The 2006 and 2008 election results confirmed that the 2004 election was indeed a Kerry landslide and that Gore won by much more than the recorded 540,000 vote margin. And this was long before the Roper UConn release of the unadjusted exit polls which provided a conclusive confirmation.

That is what the evidence shows, regardless of whether or not it is ever discussed in the media. Statistical analysts and political scientists who have looked at the evidence must be well aware of the systemic fraud, but job security and unwillingness of Democratic politicians and the mainstream media to discuss the issue are strong incentives to perpetuate the ongoing myth that historical election results have been accurate. Only a handful of liberal bloggers have even touched on the subject. A number of books have been written which show that massive fraud in the form of voter disenfranchisement and vote miscounts occurred in 2000-2008. Not one book has been written to prove that Bush won in 2004.

For brevity, I have abbreviated Lindeman’s comments and my responses to the questions posed in the original FAQ but have added references to the 2008 election.
___________________________________________________________________________

A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ
by Mark Lindeman

TruthIsAll (TIA) is the pseudonym of a former Democratic Underground (DU) regular who now posts elsewhere. Many of his writings are available at truthisall.net TIA argues, among other things, that the 2004 U.S. presidential pre-election polls and the exit polls both indicate that John Kerry won the election.

Who is TruthIsAll (TIA) and why do you care what he says?

ML
I don’t know who he is. Apparently he has worked in quantitative analysis for many years; he has described himself as an “Excel expert.” His allegations of election fraud — in particular, his enumeration of (presumably far-fetched) things one must believe in order to believe that Bush won the 2004 election — formed the template for the 2005 Project Censored story making the same case.

Many people believe that TIA’s arguments irrefutably demonstrate that John Kerry won the popular vote and the election. Many more people believe that TIA’s arguments have no merit whatsoever, and therefore don’t bother to try to refute them. I do not like to see weak arguments go unchallenged. (But plenty of people have criticized TIA’s arguments — I make no claim to originality.)

I also think that these particular weak arguments lead to poor political judgments. If TruthIsAll is right, it follows that the 2004 election was obviously stolen. So, one might conclude, among other things, that (1) most voters preferred Kerry to Bush, (2) Democratic political leaders are effectively complicit in a cover-up, and (3) Democrats cannot win crucial elections until and unless the current voting systems are thrown out. I disagree with all of these conclusions.

(Now that the Democrats have won House and Senate majorities in the 2006 election, argument #3 must be modulated. Fraud-minded observers now often argue that the Republicans stole some votes and even some seats, but that either for some reason they could not — or did not dare? — steal enough votes, or that they had to decide how many votes to steal several weeks in advance, and were caught flat-footed by a late Democratic surge. As I address on the Miscellaneous page, I have seen no convincing evidence of widespread vote miscount.

OK, so what are TIA’s arguments?

ML
He has many posts, but many of them make these basic claims:
Pre-election polls (both state and national) gave Kerry better than a 99% chance of winning the election.

Well-established political generalizations, such as the “incumbent rule,” buttress the conclusion that Kerry should have won.

The exit polls gave Kerry a lead in the popular vote well beyond the statistical margin of error, and diverged substantially from the official results in many states, generally overstating Kerry’s vote total. (This claim is largely true, although not everything TIA says about it is.)

Fraud is the only good explanation of the exit poll discrepancies. In particular, there is no good reason to believe that Kerry voters participated in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. Since Kerry did better than Bush among people who did not vote in 2000, Bush would have had to do much better among Gore 2000 voters than Kerry did among Bush 2000 voters — and that can’t have happened.

It is pretty easy to look around and determine that not many political scientists are expressing agreement with these views. But why not? It could be that political scientists have a status quo bias and/or are afraid to rock the boat by confronting unpleasant truths; perhaps some are even paid by Karl Rove. It could be that political scientists simply haven’t looked at the evidence. It could be that political scientists see gaping holes in TIA’s arguments. It could be some combination of those factors, and others besides. For what it’s worth, I will explain at some length why I don’t agree with TIA’s views.

Please note that this is not a one-size-fits-all election integrity FAQ.

Do you think that electronic voting machines are almost ridiculously insecure and unreliable?

ML
I do, although I certainly don’t agree with every word of every critic. Do you think that John Kerry won or should have won Ohio? You may be right. I don’t know. I doubt it, but I haven’t set out to knock down each and every argument about fraud or vote suppression in the 2004 election — in fact, I agree with several of them. But the arguments (by TIA and others) that Kerry won the popular vote are not at all likely to be true, in my opinion.I have rarely quoted TIA at length because (1) the FAQ is already very long and (2) TIA’s writing is often hard to read. But if you think I have mischaracterized one of his arguments, or if you have other questions or comments about the FAQ, please feel free to contact me at [my last name]@bard.edu.

TIA
These are just a few well-known researchers whose analyses confirm mine: Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, Kathy Dopp, Greg Palast, RFK Jr., Mark C. Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Michael Keefer, John Conyers, Richard Hayes Phillips, Paul Lehto, etc. At least four have advanced degrees in applied mathematics or systems analysis. I have three degrees in applied mathematics.

It would be useful if Mark would mention the names of the political scientists or statisticians who disagree with my analysis and believe that Bush won the election fairly in 2004. How do they account for his 3 million “mandate”? How do they explain where Bush found 16 million new voters net of voter mortality and turnout? What are their confirming demographics? Do any of the analysts you refer to have degrees in mathematics or statistics? Did their 2004 projections match the exit polls? Or did they match the vote miscount? Have any of them ever written about or considered election fraud in their analysis? Have they analyzed the impact of uncounted votes on election results? What is their track record? Were their projections based on economic or political factors or did they use state and national polling? What was the time period between their final projections and Election Day?

FAQ Summary and Response

1. The Pre-Election Polls

1.1. What did the national pre-election polls indicate?

ML
According to most observers, most pre-election polls put George W. Bush slightly ahead of John Kerry.

TIA
That is simply not the case. Kerry led the pre-election polls from July to Election Day except for a few weeks in September. Real Clear Politics is often cited as the data source but it only listed final Likely Voter (LV polls) – but not one Registered Voter (RV) poll. The final five pre-election polls from CBS, FOX, Gallup, ABC, and Pew had the race essentially tied. Kerry led the five-poll RV average 47.2-46.0; Bush led the LV average 48.8-48.0. Gallup’s RV sample had Kerry leading 48-46; the LV subset had Bush leading 49-47. Gallup allocated 90% of the undecided vote (UVA) to the challenger, so their final prediction was 49-49. Kerry led in the final battleground state polls.

The final five LV samples predicted an average 82.8% voter turnout, but according to post-election Census data, turnout was 88.5%. A regression analysis indicated that Kerry had 48.9% given the 82.8% prediction or 49.3% assuming he had 75% of undecided voters (UVA). But he had 51.3% given the 88.5% turnout and 52.6% with a 75% UVA. Kerry’s pre-election RV polls were 2-3% better than the LV subset since a solid majority of newly registered voters were Democrats.

2008 Update: The Pre-election RV polls had Obama leading by 52-39%. He led the LV subsets (the only ones listed at RCP) by 50-43%. Neither average includes an allocation of undecided voters.

1.2. How does TIA come up with those 99+% probabilities of a Kerry victory?

ML
Basically, those probabilities (for both state and national polls) assume that all his assumptions (for instance, about how “undecided” voters will vote) are right, and that the only source of uncertainty is random sampling error.

TIA
The 2004 Election Model assumed a final 75% undecided voter allocation (UVA) percentage; but provided scenarios ranging from 60-87%. The 5000 trial Monte Carlo EV simulation gave Kerry a 98.0% win probability assuming 60% UVA (99.8% for the base case 75% UVA).

The base case assumption was that Kerry would win 75% of the undecided vote. But the sensitivity analysis showed that he won with 50%. Historically challengers have won the undecided vote over 80% of the time. Gallup assigned 90% of undecided voters to Kerry. There were approximately 22 million new voters; Kerry won this group by 3-2. There were 3 million defecting third-party (Nader) voters; Kerry won this group by nearly 5-1 over Bush.

2008: The Final 2008 Election Model forecast (EM) exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was just 0.2% higher than his recorded 52.9% vote share. His True EV and popular vote were both higher than reported since the final projection was based on Likely Voter polls which understated Obama’s share. He led by 52-39% in the final RV polls- before undecided voters (7%) were allocated. After allocation, he led by 57-41%.

Obama’s expected EV was calculated as the cumulative sum that state win probability multiplied by its electoral vote. The 5000 election trial simulation produced a mean 365.8 EV. Convergence to the theoretical expected 365.3 EV illustrates the Law of Large Numbers.

1.3. Doesn’t the high turnout in the election mean that the registered-voter poll results are probably more accurate than the likely-voter results?

ML
No, high turnout is not a reason to dismiss the likely-voter results. Most pollsters already expected high turnout.

TIA
In 2004, average projected turnout based on the final five LV polls was 82.8%; the Census turnout estimate was 88.5%. A regression analysis of turnout vs. vote share indicated a 82.8% turnout and Kerry had 49% share. But with 88.5% turnout, he had 52.6%. The full RV sample was more accurate then the LV subset since it included many newly registered voters that LV polls filtered out. Because of the extremely high turnout (22 million new voters) many new (i.e. Democratic) voters were missed by the LV polls which understated Kerry’s projected share. Kerry won new voters by 57-62%, based on the National Exit Poll time line. But the Final NEP (13,660 respondents) was forced to match the recorded vote. The exit pollsters 1) reduced Kerry’s new voter share to 54% and 2) adjusted the returning Bush/Gore voter mix from an implausible 41/39% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43/37%.

The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents shows Kerry winning by 51.7-47.0%. He had 51% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents).

2008: With 75% of undecided voters allocated to Obama, final RV polls nearly matched his 58% True Vote share. The True Vote Model is based on a feasible returning voter mix, unlike the impossible 2008 National Exit Poll Bush/Kerry mix (46/37%). The NEP Vote shares were not changed. The 2008 True Vote Model confirms that the 2004 and 2006 NEP adjustments to the returning voter percentages were mathematically impossible in 2004 and implausible in 2006. They were necessary in order to match the poll to the fraudulent recorded vote.

1.4. How about the state polls?

ML
There TIA’s data hold up somewhat better, although his probabilities don’t. While the national polls (prior to TIA’s massaging) fit the official results rather closely, the state polls do not fit as well.

TIA
Professional pollsters must be “massagers” as well since they also allocate undecided voters. Kerry led by 48-47% in the final pre-election RV polls before undecided voters were allocated and by 51-48% after allocation. The pre-election RV polls confirmed the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls which he won by 51.0-47.5%.

According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry easily won the majority of more than 22 million new voters. He led new voters by 62-37% at 8349 respondents (4pm), 59-39% at 11027 (9pm), 57-41% at 13047 (12:22am). His new voter share was sharply reduced to 54-44% at 13660 (1:00am) in the final adjusted poll that was forced to match the recorded vote.

2008: Obama had 57% in the RV polls and 53% in the LV polls after allocating undecided votes.

1.5. What about cell phones?

ML
TIA and others have argued that the pre-election polls were biased against Kerry because they do not cover people who only use cell phones — and these were disproportionately young voters who favored Kerry.

TIA
True. Young people are heavily Democratic cell phone users.
2008: There were more cell-phone users than in 2004. It is one reason why Obama did better in the RV polls.

The “Rules”: Did They Favor Kerry?

2.1. Don’t undecided voters break sharply for the challenger?

ML
Undecided voters probably sometimes break sharply for the challenger. But I can find no evidence that this rule is useful in “allocating” reported undecided voters in presidential elections.

TIA
Undecided voters virtually always break for the challenger. If the undecideds approved of the incumbent they would not be undecided. Mark claims there is no evidence that allocation is “useful”. What is the basis of that statement? Professional pollsters find allocating undecided voters quite useful. Gallup allocated 90% to Kerry. Zogby and Harris: 75-80%.

2008: Six pollsters who allocated an average 67% of the undecided vote to Obama.

2.2. What about the rule that incumbents don’t do better than their predicted shares in the final polls?

ML
On average, it is true that incumbents don’t do better — or, rather, much better — than their predicted shares in the final polls.

TIA
That is a contradiction. Mark agrees that incumbents do no better than their final predicted shares, then he must also agree that undecided voters break for the challenger. If undecideds broke for the incumbent, he would have a higher vote share than his final poll. Therefore how could Bush have won if he did not do better than the final polls indicated – unless he won undecided voters? But the evidence shows that he did NOT win undecideds. That is a contradiction. Bush led the final LV polls by 47-46 before undecided voters were allocated. Kerry led the final RV polls by 48-47. Undecided voters broke 3-1 for Kerry. His adjusted 51-48 projection was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.0-47.5) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7-47.0).

2008: Obama was the de facto challenger since McCain represented a continuation of Bush policies.

2.3. What about the rule that incumbents don’t win when their final approval rating is below 50%?

ML
TIA has stated that Bush’s approval rating on November 1 was 48.5% based on the “average of 11 polls.”

TIA
That is true. You can look up his monthly approval ratings in the 2004 Election Model. In every election since 1972, the incumbent won re-election if his approval rating exceeded 50%.
From 1968-2008, the average incumbent final 46.5% approval rating exactly matched the average True vote!

Bush was the ONLY incumbent with approval below 50% to win re-election! There was a strong 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly pre-election approval ratings and the national polls. The Bush state approval ratings were highly correlated to his state vote and exit poll shares.

2008: On Election Day, the Bush 22% approval rating indicated that a major Obama landslide was in the making.

Describing the Exit Poll Discrepancies

3.1. How do the exit polls work?

ML
Let me say first of all that the main point of the exit polls is not to project who will win the election — although the exit poll interviews are combined with vote count data in order to make projections.

TIA
Unadjusted exit polls work just fine – until the category weights and/or vote shares are forced to match the recorded vote. That makes no sense at all. For one thing, this standard practice assumes that the election is fraud-free. In order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the NEP required an impossible return voter mix and/or implausible vote shares. Most people know that the 2004 election was not fraud-free but are unaware that fraud was just as massive in the 2006 midterms and 2008. The landslides were denied.

2008: The Final 2008 NEP contains impossible returning voter weights. The unadjusted aggregate of the state exit polls (82,000 respondents) showed Obama won by 58-40.5%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) indicated he won by 61-37%.

The published NEP returning voter mix was impossible. It implied that there were 5 million returning third-party voters, but there were only 1.2 million third-party recorded votes in 2004. It also implied that there were 60 million returning Bush voters. Bush had 62 million recorded votes. Approximately 3 million Bush 2004 voters died prior to 2008. Even assuming the fraudulent recorded 62 million, then at most 59 million returned to vote in 2008. Of course that assumes 100% living Bush 2004 voter turnout – not possible.

3.2. How accurate are exit polls?
ML
It depends, of course. Most attempts to argue that exit polls are highly accurate strangely steer around U.S. national exit polls.

TIA
Unadjusted exit polls are quite accurate. Respondents report who they just voted for; there are no undecided voters. On the other hand, the Final National Exit Poll is grossly inaccurate, since it is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it is fraudulent.

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. He had 51% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents). The exit pollsters ignored their state and national polls and just flipped the numbers. The published National Exit Poll (the same 13,660 respondents) gave Bush 51%. The National Exit Poll is a subset of the State exit polls.

2008: The unajusted national exit poll (17,836 respondents) shows that Obama led by 61-37%. He led the weighted, unadjusted state exit polls of 81,388 respondents by 58-40.5%, exactly matching the True Vote Model. Obama did 5.1% better than the recorded vote. The discrepancies are far beyond the 1.0% margin of error.

3.3. Couldn’t spoiled ballots and/or fraud account for these past discrepancies?
ML
Probably not, although they certainly may contribute. Greg Palast offers an estimate of 3.6 million uncounted ballots in 2004 alone.

TIA:
May contribute? They sure do contribute. The best evidence indicates that 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. In 2004, the Census reported 3.4 million uncounted votes. This was confirmed by government statistics (see Greg Palast). If all votes cast had been counted, Bush’s margin would have been reduced from 3.0 to 1.3 million.

But in 2004, uncounted votes were only a fraction of the total fraud. Vote miscounts (switched, stuffed ballots) accounted for most of the discrepancies. In 2000, uncounted votes were a major factor. The Census Bureau reported 5.4 million net uncounted votes, reducing Gore’s margin from approximately 3.0 million to 540,000.

In every election there are millions of net uncounted votes (uncounted less stuffed ballots).
Net Uncounted Votes = Total Votes Cast – Total Votes Recorded

In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the National Exit Polls required that returning living Nixon and Bush voter turnout had to exceed 100%. In other words, there were millions of phantom Bush voters.

The Democratic 1988-2008 unadjusted exit poll margin was 52-42%. The average recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. That’s an 8% margin discrepancy, much higher than we had been led to believe prior to the Roper listing.

3.4. What about exit pollster Warren Mitofsky’s reputation for accuracy?
ML
Here is how Mitofsky International’s website puts it: “[Mitofsky’s] record for accuracy is well known”.

TIA
The Final National Exit poll is always “perfect” because it is always forced to match the recorded vote. But the NEP needed an impossible returning voter mix to match the 2004 recorded vote – because the recorded vote was fraudulent. The unadjusted state aggregate exit poll had Kerry winning by 52-47% and closely matched the UVA-adjusted pre-election polls. Either way, the exit polls were quite accurate – even though they were polar opposites.

2008: The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 46% Bush -37% Kerry returning voter mix (12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters).

3.5. Didn’t the exit polls indicate that Kerry won by more than the polls’ margin of error?
ML
It depends on what one means by “the exit polls” and “won.”

TIA
Hmm… the question should be asked: In how many states did the unadjusted exit poll discrepancy exceed the margin of error? The MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in Bush’s favor. The probability is ZERO. Among the 29 were Ohio, Florida, NM, Iowa and Colorado. All flipped from Kerry to Bush.

The question should be: how come not ONE solid Bush state exceeded the margin of error? Because they were already in the bag. Except for Texas, they are small population states and therefore not viable candidates for vote padding.

3.6. Why are the pollsters’ estimates of uncertainty larger than the ones calculated by TruthIsAll and others?

ML
TruthIsAll sometimes has argued that the exit polls should be treated as simple random samples (like drawing marbles from a hat). In this instance, the margin of error for Ohio, with a reported sample size of 2040, would be about 4.5 points on the margin using the 95% standard.

TIA
The Ohio exit poll MoE was 2.2%. Notes to the National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) indicate that MoE was 1.0% and that voters were randomly selected as they exited the voting booth. See exitpolls_us_110204.gif

2008: The Final 2008 NEP had 17,836 respondents; the MoE was less than 1.0%

3.7. Doesn’t E/M’s own table show that the margin of error is plus-or-minus 1% for 8000 respondents or more?

ML
That table (on page 2 of the national methods statement) applies to percentages in the tabulations, not to the vote projections.

TIA:
The 1.0% MoE applies to the projected vote share for any given category cross tab in which at least 8000 have been sampled. There were 13,047 respondents at 12:22am and the MoE was 0.86%. It was 1.12% after including a 30% “cluster effect”. In the “Voted in 2000” category, there were approximately 3200 respondents (2.2% MoE, including the cluster effect). The MoE declines as vote shares diverge from a 50/50% split. For the 60/40% new voter split, the MoE was 1.7%. The MoE was just 1.0% for returning Bush and Kerry voters(a 90/10% vote split).

3.8. Doesn’t everyone agree that the exit poll results were outside the margin of error?

ML
Yes: overall, and in many states, the exit poll results differed from the official results by beyond the margin of error, overstating Kerry’s performance.

TIA:
It is more accurate to say that the official vote understated Kerry’s True Vote. The Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System reported than the MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in favor of Bush. From 1988 to 2008, the margin of error (including a 30% cluster effect factor) was exceeded in 137 of 300 state exit polls. The probability of that is zero. All but 5 red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability of that is zero.

2008: The unadjusted state aggregate (58% Obama share) exactly matched the True Vote Model and the National Exit Poll (61%). They indicated that Obama won by 22-23 million votes.

3.9. Aren’t survey results far outside the margin of error prima facie evidence of fraud?

ML
Margins of “error” refer to random sampling error. Most survey researchers would say that results outside the calculated margin of error most likely evince non-sampling error in the survey, such as non-response bias, sampling bias, or measurement error.

TIA
They evince non-sampling error? What about a vote counts? Do they evince fraud? Or is that inconceivable?

3.10. Which states had the largest exit poll discrepancies? Wasn’t it the battleground states?

ML
No, the largest exit poll discrepancies were generally not in battleground states.

TIA
Yes, they were. The overall WPE was higher in the battleground states; the lowest WPEs were in strong Bush states with low electoral votes. Not surprising, since there was noneedto steal votes in bed-rock GOP states. The largest exit poll discrepancies by vote count were in Democratic strongholds: New York and California. The NY exit poll discrepancy accounted for 750,000 of Bush’s total 3.0 million vote margin. Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 62-36%; the margin was reduced from 26% to 18% in the recorded vote (58.5-40%).

Are we to believe that Bush gained vote share from 2000 to 2004 in Democratic urban locations while his share of the vote in rural areas declined? The strong 0.61 correlation between county size and percentage increase in the recorded Bush vote in New York State is one example of the implausible Bush Urban Legend. His recorded urban vote share increased as a result of election fraud.

Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies

4.1. How did the exit pollsters explain the discrepancies in 2004?
ML
In the Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System, they stated Within Precinct Error was “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”.

TIA
What data did they base that hypothesis on? It’s a myth that was quickly promoted in the corporate media (the exit pollster’s benefactors). The pollsters own data shows the opposite. Response rates were higher in Bush (rural) strongholds than in Kerry (urban) strongholds. Could the 6.5% average WPE have simply been due to the fact that there were more Kerry voters than Bush voters? How does E-M explain the mathematically impossible 43/37% returning Bush/Gore voter mix in the Final National Exit Poll? They can’t have it both ways. The Final NEP was forced to match the miscounted recorded vote. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

2008: New election, same anomaly. This time it’s 46/37%.

4.2. What is the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) hypothesis?
ML
What the pollsters concluded in the evaluation report was simply that Kerry voters apparently participated at a higher rate.

TIA
That was a trial balloon immediately floated by the exit pollsters to explain the discrepancies but they had no data to back it up. In fact, the report suggested otherwise; there was a slight Bush bias in the exit polls. But no one in the media has called them on it. The rBr canard was contradicted by the Final National Exit Poll. A mathematically impossible Bush/Gore 43/37 returning voter mix was required to match the vote count. Unfortunately few read the report.

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

The Final National Exit Poll indicated that returning Bush voters comprised 43% of the electorate; just 37% were Gore voters. Bush needed 55% of non-responders to match his recorded vote since he had 47% of responders. Exit Poll response was higher in strong Bush states than in Kerry states.

2008: Expect the same tired canard: Democratic voters were more anxious to speak to the exit pollsters, blah, blah, blah…

4.3. Does the participation bias explanation assume that fraud is unthinkable?
ML
I will present several lines of argument that participation bias accounts for much of the exit poll discrepancy, and that fraud does not.

TIA
Do the “lines of argument” include data from the E-M report that indicates Bush voters participated at a higher rate? The change in the Bush recorded vote share from 2000 to 2004 is an incorrect measure of Swing. It should be based on total votes cast (i.e. the True Vote). The correlation between TRUE vote swing as measured by the 2000 and 2004 unadjusted exit polls and recorded Red-shift was a strong 0.44.

Kathy Dopp of U.S. Count Votes proved that it is not NECESSARY that there be a CORRELATION for fraud to occur; the assertion was logically false.

2008: Expect the “swing vs. red-shift: canard to be used again. But as in 2004, “swing” in 2008 will assume a fraud-free 2004. In any case, the premise has been proven logically false, since it is easy to display scenarios that disprove it.

4.4. Don’t the high completion rates in “Bush strongholds” disprove the rBr or bias hypothesis?

ML
No, and I’m amazed how much mental effort has gone into elaborating this very weak argument.

TIA
Amazed that a regression analysis shows completion rates declined from Bush to Kerry states? The analysis is a “strong” argument. The Kerry vote share vs. Exit Poll completion graph clearly shows the pattern.

2008: The E-M report has not yet been released. Why? It will surely show the same regression trend.

4.5. How can you explain the impossible changes in the national exit poll results after midnight?

ML
As I explained above, the tabulations are periodically updated in line with the projections — and, therefore, in line with the official returns.

TIA
But what if the tabulations were corrupted by official vote miscounts? Given the overt 2000 election theft, matching to the recorded vote count in 2004 requires a major leap of faith: to assume that Bush had neither motive, means or opportunity to steal the election.

4.6. Why were the tabulations forced to match the official returns?
ML
If the official returns are more accurate than the exit polls — and bear in mind that exit polls have been (presumably) wrong in the past — then weighting to the official returns should, generally, provide more accurate tabulations.

TIA
The polls were “presumably” wrong?. I suppose it was “presumably” coincidental that in the last 6 elections, the margin of error was exceeded in 137 of 300 state presidential exit polls – and 132 red-shifted to the Republican. Here is simple proof that the vote count was wrong: a significant part of the exit poll discrepancies in every election since 1968 can be explained by millions of uncounted votes.

2008: The Final NEP once again assumed an impossible mix of returning Bush/Kerry/Other voters (46/37/4%). The Bush 46% (60.2m) share is impossible; there were at most 57 million returning Bush voters – if you assume that his 62 million recorded votes in 2004 were legitimate. The 4% returning third-party (5.2m) share is impossible or the 2004 third-party vote was significantly higher than the official reported 1.2 million.

4.7. Wasn’t there an effort to cover up the exit poll discrepancies?
ML
Not that I can see.

TIA
That’s because you are not looking for them. You don’t see them either a) because you refuse to consider the preponderance of the evidence or b) you are not looking hard enough. The National Exit Pool has not provided raw, unadjusted precinct data for peer review. When pressured to provide unadjusted Ohio exit poll data, they “blurred” the data by not divulging the precincts. Of course, the MSM has never discussed this. But that is no longer even necessary. We have the unadjusted state and national exit polls and the incontrovertible red-shifts and the impossible forced matching of the exit polls to the recorded votes. We don’t need anything else. The data that has been released proves systemic Election Fraud far beyond any doubt.

2008: There is obviously an ongoing, recurring effort to cover up the fraud. Just look at the NEP. No one is questioning the 8% discrepancy between the Obama’s unadjusted NEP (61%) and his recorded share (53%).

4.8. Is there any specific reason to think that the exit poll discrepancies don’t point to fraud?

ML
One of my favorites is based on TruthIsAll’s observation: “Based on the pre-election polls: 41 out of 51 states (incl DC) deviated to Bush. Based on the exit polls: 43 out of 51 deviated to Bush.”

TIA
How can the margin of error be exceeded in 29 states, all in favor of Bush, and not be an indicator of massive fraud? How can forcing the Final NEP to match the vote count (using impossible weights and implausible vote shares) not be an indicator of fraud? How can the state and national polls not indicate fraud? When input to the Interactive Election Simulation model, the 51-48% Kerry victory was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (52-47%) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7-47%) After allocating undecided voters, pre-election state and national polls matched the corresponding unadjusted exit polls.

2008: The unadsjusted exit polls show an even larger red-shift than 2004.

4.9. Is there any specific reason to believe that participation bias does explain the discrepancies?

ML
Yes, beyond the facts that participation bias is common, that past exit polls have overstated Democratic performance, and that the exit poll discrepancies don’t correlate with pre-election poll discrepancies, “swing” from 2000, or electronic voting machine use, there is also some evidence indicating participation bias in 2004.

TIA
But we KNOW that a major cause of the discrepancies was sue to uncounted votes. And we have evidence that the votes have been miscounted as well? True, the Democrats always do better in exit polls than the recorded vote because 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. The premise of the “swing vs. red-shift” argument (that the 2000 and 2004 recorded votes are appropriate to measure swing) is invalid. At least 5.4 million (net of stuffed) ballots were never counted in 2000 and 3.4 million were uncounted in 2004. The false premise kills the argument that near-zero correlation between vote swing and red shift “kills the fraud argument”. The “swing vs. red-shift” canard is pure double-talk designed to confuse. It was debunked in general by Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes in a mathematical proof. And using votes cast and the True Vote as the baseline shows that in fact, the correlation has been a strong one in the elections where a Bush was the incumbent.

2008: The media is sure to use the same, pathetic bias argument that Democratic voters were more likely to be exit-polled – among other things.

4.10. Aren’t you offering a lot of unproven speculation?
ML
You could call it that, or you could call it scientific reasoning on the basis of incomplete evidence.

TIA
On the contrary, you are forsaking the scientific method by your refusal to consider the best evidence (the data) and an unbiased analysis. Instead you resort to faith-based and disproven arguments. The True Vote Model has been confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls. The evidence is overwhelming. You have seen more than enough evidence but refuse to accept any of it.

2008: Even with more evidence of fraud in the impossible 2008 Final NEP, Mark still invokes rBr and “false recall”.

4.11. Are you saying that the exit polls disprove fraud?
ML
No. As noted earlier, many forms of fraud may be compatible with the exit poll results. However, it seems hard to reconcile massive, widespread fraud – on the order of many millions of miscounted votes — with the exit poll results unless one begins by discounting the details of the exit poll results.

TIA
A “massive” 5% vote switch is very possible with unverifiable touch screens and invisible central tabulators. Uncounted votes accounted for over half of Bush’s 3 million “mandate”. There were 125.7 million votes cast in 2004. In 2000, 110.8 million votes were cast. Approximately 5.5 million died. Of the 105 million still living, approximately 102 million voted in 2004. Therefore there were 23 million new voters and 3 million returning Nader voters. How did they vote? For Kerry. He had approximately 15.5 million (60%) – a 5 million margin. Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. So how did Bush turn a 5.5 million deficit into a 3 million surplus? That’s an 8.5 million net vote switch. Are we to believe that 8.5 million more Gore voters defected to Bush than Bush voters defected to Kerry? That is beyond implausible.

2008: And now we are expected to believe that were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters.

4.12. Are you saying that you are sure Bush didn’t steal the election?
ML
No, depending on what one means by “steal.” In particular, I think it is at least possible that some combination of vote suppression (purges, long lines, intimidation, etc.) and uncounted votes cost John Kerry a victory in Ohio, and therefore in the election. (Obviously “uncounted votes” can be regarded as a form of vote suppression.) I doubt it, but I am not arguing against it here.

TIA
There you go, refusing once again to even consider the probability that votes were miscounted electronically. Why not? You agree that vote suppression is “possible” when it is proven by the facts. After all the anecdotal evidence of vote miscounts, you still only go as far as to suggest “vote suppression” and uncounted votes as “possibilities”, but do not consider the very real probability that votes were miscounted at the touch screens and central tabulators.

Why would election officials employ visible vote suppression in the light of day but not resort to invisible, unverifiable electronic vote switching and other surreptitious methods?

You cannot logically refute that.

2008: A new election and still the same unverifiable voting machines. It’s a repeat of the 2006 Democratic Tsunami. Landslide denied.

Comparing 2004 to 2000

5.1. Why has TruthIsAll called the “2000 presidential vote” question the clincher?

ML
TIA emphasizes two aspects of this table. First, he notes, it is impossible that 43% of the 2004 electorate voted for Bush in 2000. That would be over 52 million Bush voters, whereas Bush only got about 50.5 million votes in 2000. (Some of those voters must have died, or not voted for other reasons.)

TIA

Unadjusted exit poll update: Well, now that the actual National and state exit poll numbers have been released and show that Kerry had 51.7% in the former and 51.0% in the latter, thus confirming the mortality and turnout analysis in the True Vote Model, it’s just a moot point now, is it not? It’s a moot point now that we have proof that the 13,660 actual responses were adjusted in the Final National Exit Poll to force a match to the recorded vote.

But here is my original response to this anyway. It’s still valid because it is irrefutable logic that has been confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – even though it stands by itself.

It’s a clinch because of simple arithmetic: The 43% statistical weighting in th final NEP implies 52.6 million returning Bush voters – 2.1 million more than his recorded 50.46 million in 2000. But let’s not stop there. Approximately 2.5 million died, therefore at most 48 million could have voted in 2004. If 46 of 48 million returned to vote in 2004, then the Final NEP overstated the number of Bush voters by 6.6 million. This is not rocket science or brain surgery.

2008:
Another unadjusted exit poll update: And now we have the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) showing that Obama had 61%. And we have the unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) showing that he had 58.0%. once again, the exit pollsters and their benefactors in the mainstream media are hoisted on their own petard.

It’s even worse this time around. The returning Bush/Kerry voter mix was 46/37%. Even if Bush won by the recorded 3 million votes and there was zero fraud in 2004, the mix implies that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But if Kerry won by the unadjusted exit poll 52-47% (6 million votes) then there was an 18 million switch!

5.2. What is wrong with the “impossible 43%” argument?
ML
It assumes that exit poll respondents accurately report whom they voted for in the previous election. In reality, exit poll respondents seem to have overstated their support for the previous winner in every exit poll for which I could obtain data, ten in all, going back to 1976. Lots of other evidence indicates that people often report having voted for the previous winner although they didn’t. Perhaps most telling is an (American) National Election Study (NES) “panel” in which people were interviewed soon after the 2000 election, and then re-interviewed in 2004.

TIA
This will put the 43/37 argument to eternal rest and close the book on False Recall. In the unadjusted 2004 NEP (13,660 respondents) Kerry had 7,074 (51.71%) and Bush 6,414 (46.95%). Of the 13,660 respondents, 3,182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1,257 (39.50%) said Bush and 1,221 (38.37%) said Gore. When the 39.5/38.37 mix is applied to the 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry has 51.74%, exactly matching the unadjusted NEP.

This puts the lie to the published Final NEP (Bush 50.7-48.3%) and the 43/37% returning Bush/Gore mix. We have just proved that the Final NEP 43/37 mix is a forced result – not an actual sample.

Gore had 540,000 more official votes than Bush (3 million if the True Vote 5.4m uncounted votes are included). Why would returning Gore voters, but not returning Bush voters, misstate their past vote? It makes no sense. The past vote question was posed to 3,182 of 13,660 exit poll respondents. Yet the responses to past vote question confirmed the 2004 unadjusted National Exit poll (13,660 respondents).

The past vote question was not a factor in the other category crosstabs: sex, race, income, party-id, location, when decided, military background, etc). The respondents were only asked who they voted for. And 51% said Kerry. No fog, no forgetting.

False Recall assumes the recorded vote as a baseline, not the True Vote. Gore won the recorded vote in 2000 by 540,000. But he won the unadjusted state exit polls by 6 million (50.8-44.5%). The implication of false recall and swing vs. red-shift was that the 2000 election was a fair one. That is a FALSE PREMISE.

There is no evidence to suggest Gore voters forgot or were motivated to lie. Retrospective surveys matched the True Vote when total VOTES CAST was used as a baseline. The NES respondents told the truth about their past vote: In 1968-2008, the average NES winning margin was 11.4%.

The average True Vote winning margin was 10.6%. The average True Vote winning share deviated by 0.4% from NES. The average Democratic True winning share deviated by 0.7%. The average Republican True winning share deviated by 0.46%.

2008: It’s hard to believe that the “false recall” canard is still being used, especially since Bush’s 48% approval rating in 2004 declined to 30% in 2006 and 22% in 2008. Are we expected to believe that the ridiculous 2008 Final NEP 46/37% returning voter mix was due to Kerry voters misstating their past vote to the exit pollsters and that returning Bush voters were reluctant to be interviewed? It’s a true Hobson’s choice dilemma.

5.3. What is wrong with the second argument, where new (and Nader) voters break the stalemate in favor of Kerry?

ML
The second argument assumes that Kerry did about as well among Bush 2000 voters as Bush did among Gore 2000 voters. Superficially, the exit poll table supports this assumption.

TIA
The 12:22am National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry had 10% of returning Bush voters and Bush just 8% of returning Gore voters. But in order to force the Final NEP to match the recorded vote, the shares had to be changed to 9% and 10%. Changing the Bush/Gore returning voter mix to 43/37 was not sufficient to match the recorded vote.

In the Democratic Underground “Game” thread, participants agreed to the stipulation that there could not have been more returning Bush voters than were still living. In order to match the recorded vote, Mark had to increase Bush’s share of returning Gore voters to an implausible 14.6%. And he had to reduce Kerry’s share of new voters to 52.9%. The new voter share had already been reduced from 62% at 4pm to 59% at 7:30pm to 57% at 12:22am to 54% in the Final. In effect, Mark abandoned the “false recall” argument. But he reverted back to it when he saw that his fudged vote shares were not taken seriously.

2008: We thought “false recall” was laid to rest in 2006, but Mark still uses it – even as he concedes that Final National Exit Poll weights/shares are always adjusted to force a match to the “official” count. Contradictions abound. Mark wants to have it both ways (rBr and “false recall”). But it’s a Hobson’s Choice. One argument refutes the other. He is spinning like a top.

5.4. But… but… why would 14% of Gore voters vote for Bush??
ML
If one thinks of “Gore voters” as people who strongly supported Gore and resented the Supreme Court ruling that halted the Florida recount, then the result makes no sense. For that matter, if one thinks of “Gore voters” in that way, it makes no sense that they would forget (or at any rate not report) having voted for Gore. Nevertheless, the NES panel evidence indicates that many did. (Of course, the figure may not be as high as 14% — although it could conceivably be even higher).

TIA
Right, it makes no sense. It only makes sense if you consider that the Final NEP was forced to match a corrupt recorded vote by changing the 12:22am return voter mix and the vote shares. But it’s not just that the number of returning Gore defectors makes no sense; the vote share adjustments in the Democratic Underground “Game” were beyond implausible.

The Final was forced to match the recorded vote. The 43/37 returning Bush/Gore voter mix was impossible. The mix required over 6 million phantom Bush voters. The Final had to adjust corresponding Bush vote shares to implausible levels. Kerry won all plausible scenarios in a sensitivity analysis of various vote share assumptions.

2008: To believe that 46% were returning Bush voters, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But even assuming that the official 3 million Bush “mandate” was legitimate, one would only expect an approximate 3 million difference in turnout. Instead we are asked to believe that 4.5 million Kerry voters (7.6% of 59 million) told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush, despite his 22% approval.

TruthIsAll FAQ:
Miscellaneous

M.1. What about the reports of flipped votes on touch screens in 2004?
ML
Many people reported difficulty voting on electronic voting machines (DREs), in particular, that attempts to vote for one candidate initially registered as votes for another. The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), connected to the “OUR-VOTE” telephone hotline, recorded close to 100 such incidents. TruthIsAll has asserted that 86 out of 88 reports of electronic vote-flipping favored Bush. He cites the odds of this imbalance as 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000.

TIA
The probability calculation is correct. The odds that 86 of 88 randomly selected vote switching incidents would be from Kerry to Bush are one in 79 sextillion. The reports came from widely diverse, independent precincts but were just a drop in the bucket. Many voters know of someone whose vote was switched right before their eyes. And yet Mark still does not accept that electronic vote switching was a major cause of the exit poll discrepancies. The votes were not just switched on touch screens. Invisible, unverifiable central tabulators “consolidate” reported precinct votes. But no one could report those vote flips to EIRS.

M.2. Did the 2006 exit polls manifest “red shift” compared with official returns?

ML
Yes. For instance, the initial national House tabulation — posted a bit after 7 PM Eastern time on election night — indicates that Democratic candidates had a net margin of about 11.3 points over Republican candidates. The actual margin was probably about 7 points, depending on how uncontested races are handled.

TIA:
There is no basis for that statement. It’s a “belief” based on a few outlier polls with no allocation of undecided voters. The 120 “generic poll” moving average regression trend line projected that the Democrats would win 56.4% of the vote. The unadjusted aggregate state exit polls produced an identical 56.4% share.

M.3. Do pre-election “generic” House polls in 2006 match the initial exit poll returns?
ML
Not really. A “generic” poll is one that asks respondents whether they would vote for (in Gallup’s words) “the Democratic Party’s candidate or the Republican Party’s candidate,” rather than naming specific candidates.

TIA
So what if the names were not indicated? That is pure nonsense! Yes, they matched all right. The trend-line of 120 pre-election Generic Polls, all won by the Democrats, projected a 56.4% Democratic vote share. Lo and behold, the unadjusted exit poll aggregate was an identical 56.4%!

Yes, it’s true: Generic polls were not a good predictor of the recorded vote. But they did predicted the True Vote! A corrsponding pre-election model quantified the risk that 10-20 House elections would be stolen.

M.4. What about the massive undervotes in Sarasota County, Florida (C.D. 13)?
ML
Without getting into the specifics, the short answer is: I think that if voters had been able to cast their votes as they intended, the Democratic candidate Christine Jennings would have won the House race in Florida’s 13th Congressional District (FL-13) by thousands of votes, instead of losing by under 400. I have seen no evidence that the events in FL-13 shed light on outcomes in any other Congressional race.

TIA
Are we to believe that FL-13 was an isolated case of missing and/or switched votes? And there is no evidence of vote miscounting in the other 434 districts? A number of post-election studies indicate otherwise.

End of FAQ Summary Update
________________________________________________________________________________

 

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 780 other followers