RSS

Tag Archives: 1988-2008 exit poll database

The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Comments to the LA Times article on an upcoming PBS Special on JFK

Comments to the LA Times article on an upcoming PBS Special on JFK

Richard Charnin
Aug.10, 2013
Updated March 9, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

From the article:
“Sorry, conspiracy theorists, modern forensic science shows that John F. Kennedy was likely killed by “one guy with a grudge and a gun,” said professor John McAdams during a panel for Nova’s new “Cold Case: JFK” on Wednesday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Beverly Hills”. http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-et-st-pbs-cold-case-jfk-conspiracy-theorists-20130807/10

“Killed by one guy with a grudge and a gun”?

That’s a lie, pure and simple. No, Professor, Americans are not so gullible as to believe this pathetic nonsense. Do you dare tell your students that it was a communist malcontent with a grudge? They probably would laugh you out of the classroom. Modern forensic evidence (videos, photographs, acoustic, medical, ballistic, geometric) and overwhelming eyewitness testimony proved a conspiracy a long time ago. Not to mention the mathematical impossibility that at least 100 of an estimated 1400 material witnesses would die mysteriously in the 14 years following the assassination.

Officially 77 deaths were ruled unnatural: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 3 unknown cause. But statistical expectation based on mortality rates indicates there should have been just 12 accidents and 3 suicides. Approximately 25 of the 40 deaths officially ruled accidents and suicides were actually homicides. Therefore, approximately 59 of the 77 deaths ruled unnatural were homicides. But that’s not all. The 43 deaths officially ruled as “natural”, including heart attacks and sudden cancers, was also overstated based on statistical expectation. As many as 25 were actually homicides, therefore approximately 80-90 of the 1400 material witnesses deaths were homicides.

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/

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.

Since you cannot refute the mathematics, you are left with the lame response that the data, logic and calculations were not peer-reviewed. You are not interested in the scientific method and are apparently mathematically challenged; that’s why you cannot peer-review it yourself. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

To you, all honest JFK researchers, authors, Parkland doctors and Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses are “mistaken” and/or trying to sell books – just like you did. But unlike these truth seekers, you and the corporate media gatekeepers are classic examples of how factual omission, misinformation, disinformation and logical fallacies are used to cover up the truth about the JFK assassination.

Now these comments to the article are for readers (and students) who can think for themselves.

Clare Kuehn at 4:40 PM August 10, 2013
Not only is a wide and deep conspiracy far more horrible — the horrible way we can be fooled and that people would want to — than “odd events which just might happen” (though those can be horrible, too) …

There HAS to be a magic bullet simply within the back-near-spine to front-of-neck trajectory: An empty object (one without a spine/neckbones) could have such a trajectory, but centre front from (or to) near centre back REQUIRES A STOPPED OR DEFLECTED BULLET.

McAdams/PBS advisors’ “science” dies on this single point.

James Fetzer at 2:30 PM August 10, 2013
Does anyone really believe that the belief that our lives is dominated by powerful special interests who can even remove the President of the United States in broad daylight in a major American city is psychologically “more comforting” than the belief that it was done by “a lone, demented gunman”?

Psychologists observe that most of us suppress information that conflicts with our most deeply held beliefs, such as the belief that our government is nurturing and protecting us. The phenomenon, which is known as “cognitive dissonance”, can be illustrated by a woman who discovers evidence that her husband has been molesting their daughter, but cannot bring herself to accept it. Years later, when the truth emerges, she is at a loss to explain why she had not done something about it. The “magic bullet” theory is not even anatomically possible, as David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has proven, because cervical vertebrae intervene, which shows their knowledge of human psychology is no greater than their knowledge of human anatomy. The situation is the same with regard to 9/11, where Rachel Maddow touts it as “more comforting” to believe that the government murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens to promote a political agenda than it is to believe that 19 Islamic terrorists committed the crime. They are bringing us a song and dance in lieu of rational analysis based on logic and evidence.

Harald’s Piget at 9:46 AM August 10, 2013
Why does George H.W. Bush choke on the words “deranged madman”?
He’s stifling a laugh cause he can’t even say it with a straight face. At Ford’s funeral H.W. brings up the Kennedy case. And yes, Ford was on the Commission and did the lynch pin altering of the data to make the “Magic Bullet” slightly more plausible.. Enough for government work..

Why do they call it “Magic Bullet”?
Because the alleged behavior of the bullet does not match the habits of nature as described by Newton! Get it, folks…It didn’t happen. The whole thing is a dirty American secret hiding in plain sight…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3eGWZd7LE

Harald’s Piget at 9:30 AM August 10, 2013
The “Commission” which allegedly cleared the air was not even independent – it was picked by LBJ. And didn’t even investigate, regardless of the 16 volume record that is now definitely not in your local library. Just read a few pages to discover it was most definitely not an investigation; if you know anything about what an actual investigation looks like.

There must be an emotional reason every single literate citizen who has access to the Internet could not figure this out and draw the appropriate conclusion. The “Magic Bullet” notion is just for people who believe the Bible was found under a tree and God put it there.

Harald’s Piget at 9:28 AM August 10, 2013
All the details those people who’ve studied the forensics and issues for 10K hours, at least, understand and think makes it all obvious, just make folks eyes glaze over… ’cause that’s how it’s been framed.

And the experts are so close to the material it inhibits the communication of the reality to folks who have no frame of reference for the details… So a McAdam’s can get away with reassuring people “there’s nothing to look at here. Move along”.
It also helps the public are not trained in logic, rhetoric and grammar.

The hit to the back of the head with the brains on the back of the limo? The alleged rifle that couldn’t load fast enough; a rifle so old it was difficult if not impossible to get bullets. The fact the evidence shows Kennedy was hit to the head with a high powered rifle.. The fact the alleged killer was not a marksmen and the image of him with a rifle – promoted by Time- Life was special effected.. The blocking tree the obscured the shot..

Not even touching on the patsy’s murder while in the custody of the Dallas police within a few days by a mob connected murderer. That alone was enough to make most Europeans know it was a State hit.

Harald’s Piget at 9:27 AM August 10, 2013
If it’s on TV. you know it’s a lie…Tom Hanks is as trustable as Earl Warren.. Remember, the first movie Hanks starred in was how video games made a kid (played by Tom Hanks) want to jump off the Trade Towers, since the games made Hank’s role think he could fly.

Why is McAdams so interested in propping up the falsified one-thousand-and-one ways to Sunday… ludicrous myth? It’s gonna take some big gonads to come out on the 50th with this horrendous lie. Ra Ra. lol

The perpetrators and cover – up artists never lacked chutzpah. Even to the point of making Oliver Stone a pariah in the movie business for 10 years after , his actually lukewarm “JFK”. For years, Stone’s name mentioned in the Mass Media organs never went by once without the accompaniment of a blaring laugh – track around the alleged slur “Conspiracy theorist.”

How’s that for fallacious persuasion and Mass Media control of information and perception? All this gigantically funded Propaganda push, marking the 50th year, is going to prove is the indisputable collusion of the Mass Media organs of information.

Richard Charnin at 8:32 AM August 10, 2013
“I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald…. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony…. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation…. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.” –Robert Blakey, staff director and chief counsel for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, statement from 2003

Richard Charnin at 8:32 AM August 10, 2013
“After the assassination the public was burdened with no quandary. Wherever the guilt really lay, the man identified as killing President Kennedy was stamped as a disciple of the extreme left. Rightly or wrongly, the political left was implicitly convicted along with Oswald. Was that verdict just, or were Oswald and his apparent heroes victims of a vicious double-cross by forces of the extreme right?” –Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime

“I have felt, I always felt, a sympathy for Oswald, and I just don’t feel it’s right that he would be, or his children should be, stuck with that stigma, that’s all.” –Chauncey Holt, CIA contract agent and Mafia associate (also identified as one of the “three tramps” photographed in Dealey Plaza), video interview, 20 June 1997

“Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination. And the fact that history — or in the rewriting of history — has made a villain of this young man, who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine, is in some ways the greatest injustice of all.” –Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans, interviewed in the documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: Part 4: The Patsy

Richard Charnin at 8:31 AM August 10, 2013
“It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency…. Right after the President was killed, people in the Tokyo station were talking openly about Oswald having gone to Russia for the CIA. Everyone was wondering how the agency was going to be able to keep the lid on Oswald. But I guess they did.” –interview of Jim and Elsie Wilcott, former husband and wife employees of the Tokyo CIA Station, San Francisco Chronicle, “Couple Talks about Oswald and the CIA,” 12 September 1978

[Former CIA Director Richard] Helms told reporters during a break that no one would ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald … represented. Asked whether the CIA knew of any ties Oswald had with either the KGB or the CIA, Helms paused and with a laugh said, ‘I don’t remember.’” –Richard Helms, chatting with the Washington Post’s George Lardner and other reporters in 1978, during a recess of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, cited by Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

Richard Charnin at 8:30 AM August 10, 2013
“There’s no question in my mind that the twenty-six volume set [of the Warren Report] should be taken from the shelves of all the libraries where they now rest in the United States, in non-fiction, and placed in the fiction shelves, along with Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, and Gulliver’s Travels.” –Dr. Cyril Wecht, interviewed in the documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: Part 1: The Coup D’etat

“If he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing ‘Oswald’s ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.’” --Richard Sprague, first staff director and chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, statement to Sam Anson of New Times magazine, cited by Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

“[Lee Oswald's mother] Mrs. Marguerite Oswald frequently expressed the opinion that her son was recruited by an agency of the U.S. Government and sent to Russia in 1959, but she stated before the Commission that ‘I cannot prove Lee is an agent.’” –Warren Commission Report, Appendix XII: Speculations and Rumors, Oswald and U.S. Government Agencies, p. 660

Richard Charnin at 8:30 AM August 10, 2013
“We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there’re fingerprints of intelligence.” –Republican Senator Richard Schweiker, member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, The Village Voice, 15 December 1975

“The question of whether Oswald had any relationship with the FBI or the CIA is not frivolous. The agencies, of course, are silent. Although the Warren Commission had full power to conduct its own independent investigation, it permitted the FBI and the CIA to investigate themselves — and so cast a permanent shadow on the answers.” --Walter Cronkite, CBS News anchor, 28 June 1967

“I think the [Warren] report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards … the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was to not use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up.” –Republican Senator Richard Schweiker, member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, speaking on the CBS News program Face the Nation, 27 June 1976

Richard Charnin at 7:37 AM August 10, 2013
Apparently, McAdams had a limited math background, otherwise he would have done the analysis. His total ignorance of probability theory is shown by his feeble, pathetic attempt to refute the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical doctors at Parkland Hospital. The man has no shame. And this is a university professor? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic2.htm

As a quantitative analyst/software developer working in defense/aerospace and Wall Street investment banking, I had the pleasure of programming mathematical models that were more complex than calculating probabilities of JFK witness unnatural deaths. Facts, logic and mathematical proof are the bane of the disinformationist. Knowing the unnatural mortality rate (R) for (n) witness unnatural deaths in a group of (N) individuals over a given time period (T) is all that is required in order to calculate the probability of (n) deaths.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/

Richard Charnin at 7:34 AM August 10, 2013
The following logical analysis represents a profound PARADIGM SHIFT in analyzing the significance of the “convenient” witness deaths. To prove a conspiracy, it does not matter one iota if individual witnesses were related or material to the assassination (even though they obviously were). Witness relevance and connection to JFK becomes obvious after the fact.

This straightforward probability analysis closes the book on McAdams’ decades-old barrage of disinformation and utter disregard for the truth. As a professor of political science, one would expect McAdams to seek the truth with an honest scientific evaluation of the facts. His avoidance – or inability – of engaging in an honest analysis cannot be attributed totally to pure ignorance. His agenda is obvious to anyone paying attention. He has been exposed time and again as an illogical coincidence theorist (CT). The “tell” is his inability to refute the basic mathematical analysis which proves that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Knowing the unnatural mortality rate (R) for (n) witness unnatural deaths in a group of (N) individuals over a given time period (T) is all that is required in order to calculate the probability of (n) deaths.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/

Richard Charnin at 7:23 AM August 10, 2013
John McAdams is the foremost Warren Commission apologist and Lone Nutter. To McAdams, JFK researchers seeking the truth are “conspiracy buffs” who are wrong to believe scores of eyewitnesses, Parkland doctors, photographic and acoustic evidence.

McAdams astounding propensity to obfuscate is best illustrated in his attempt to debunk Jim Marrs’ list in “Strange” and “Convenient” Deaths Surrounding the Assassination: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm. But this is just one example of McAdams’ disinformation and obfuscations.

After reading this post, check out Michael T. Griffith’s extremely thorough debunking of McAdams’ Kennedy Assassination home page. The devastating article was written in 2001, yet McAdams is still “lone-nutting” for the Warren Commission. http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm

We will quickly prove that McAdams’ valiant effort to refute the relevance of the witnesses is an exercise in futility. He is apparently unaware that at least 56 of the approximate 800 witnesses called to testify by the Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw Trial, Senate Select Committee and the HSCA met “convenient” deaths in 1964-77. The probability is ZERO.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Richard Charnin at 6:04 AM August 10, 2013
Oswald said: “I am just a patsy”. Here is proof that he was. Aside from the impossible Magic Bullet trajectory, and the planted pristine bullet found on Connally’s stretcher at Parkland Hospital, we have Absolute proof of a conspiracy: The bullet in Connally’s thigh. Will this be shown in the upcoming Tom Hanks cover-up propaganda film “Parkland”? Not Likely. http://rechtiskrom.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/lee-harvey-oswald-i-am-just-a-patsy/

WinstonCourt at 10:53 PM August 9, 2013
There is no theory that a lot, if not most, of information on this was locked up for 75 years, and kept from the public. There is no theory about our government having been caught in the past killing people. There is no theory about the fact that our government frequently lies. There is no theory about the fact that government hides their evil actions under the title of “national security.” There is no theory that a bunch of perverts have been caught in our public servant offices. Etc., etc., etc.

So, it really becomes a focus on “conspiracy.” And, am I the only one who is a constant state of conspiracy in my actions? I mean, a LOT of what I do is a conspiracy. I hide facts, I lie, I manipulate, I choose words to lead people into believing scenerios which are less that true, etc., etc., etc.
So then, is government, our public servants, etc. like God, and are perfect people? I THINK NOT!

Clare Kuehn at 3:56 PM August 9, 2013
Psychologizing about which is more comforting — odd events, or corruption at high and low levels — is moot. The question is which science work is done properly.
Since a back wound just to the right of the spine would have to pass through bony process from the neck, no matter HOW the body was positioned, in order to reach the center front neck, there had to be at least a back and front shooter to be forensically anatomically possible.

As Arlen Specter’s own questions to the doctors in the Warren Commission admit, the shots require NO NECK BONE, as do McAdams’ and the hypothetical “science” of PBS advisors.

Kennedy could raise his head; he had a neck bone.This aspect (1 front shot, 1 back shot) does not exonerate Oswald as a shooter, but it is a start. And already posits the requirement of 2 or more persons: a conspiracy; and answers it with roughly where they were (a theory, i.e., explanation — of the forensics).
Now get real.

James Fetzer at 2:51 PM August 9, 2013
Citing John McAdams’ book, JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC (2011), creates a grossly misleading impression. As David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has shown in his devastating review on the CTKA web site, McAdams commits so many fallacies that I, who offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years, could teach a week’s worth of dissection in critical thinking. It is a compendium of irresponsible reasoning.

He grossly violates a basic condition of scientific reasoning, namely, that it must be based upon ALL the available evidence. In relation to the Zapruder film, for example, he does not explain that 60 witnesses reported observing the limousine slow dramatically or come to a complete stop, where it slowed dramatically AS it came to a complete stop. Nor that a half-dozen have viewed another film that includes it. Nor does he cite John P. Costella’s on-line Zapruder tutorial.

This had to be suppressed lest the public realize that the film has been massively altered, since the driver’s pulling it to the left and to a halt was such a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity. While the blow-out at the back of his head was painted over in black, it can still be seen in frame 374. For more, see “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’? and “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”.


James Fetzer at 9:23 AM August 9, 2013
As Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the medical panel for the HSCA, has observed, if the “magic bullet” theory is false, then there had to have been at least 6 shots from 3 directions, insofar as the wound to JFK’s throat could no longer be counted as an exit wound and the wounds to John Connally would also require extra shots and additional shooters.

Since the “magic bullet” theory is provably false, there must have been at least 6 shots and additional shooters, which establishes the existence of the conspiracy that others, like John McAdams, are so eager to cover-up. (See “Reasoning about Assassinations”.)

The shirt and jacket JFK was wearing have holes about 5.5″ below the collar. The autopsy diagram shows a wound at that location. Admiral Burkley places the wound at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebrae. An FBI sketch shows the back wound lower than the wound to the throat. Re-enactment photos show a large patch there, with a smaller patch at the back of the head. The mortician’s description places it 5-6″ below the collar.
Gerald Ford had the wound re-described from “his uppermost back” to “the base of the back of the neck”. But the hypothesis is not even anatomically possible, because cervical vertebrae intervene. What science shows is that JFK was killed by at least 6 shots from 3 directions. The question is easy to resolve by simply looking at the evidence.

James Fetzer at 12:33 AM August 9, 2013
Having pioneered the application of scientific reasoning to the assassination of JFK in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE 1998, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA 2000 and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX 2003–which Vincent Bugliosi has acknowledged as the only exclusively scientific books published on the death of our 35th president–John McAdams’ stance is absurd.

I organized a research group of the most highly qualified experts to ever study the case in late 1992, including three M.D.s and three Ph.D.s. We discovered almost immediately that the autopsy X-rays had been altered, that another brain had been substituted for that of JFK and that the Zapruder film had been massively revised.

There are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit; the CIA/military/Mafia/anti-Castro Cubans and local law-enforcement took him out, the FBI was used to cover it up and Lyndon and J. Edgar were principals with financing from Texas oil men. See “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”.

“Reasoning about Assassinations”, which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, provides the simplest proof of conspiracy, simply by establishing where JFK was hit in the back. We are in the midst of the most massive propaganda campaign in US history, where McAdams is far from alone in spreading false information about the assassination.

Richard Charnin at 10:38 PM August 8, 2013
In 1964-1977, at least 81 of 1400 material witnesses died unnaturally (46 homicides, 8 suicides, 23 accidental, 4 unknown). Applying the national unnatural mortality rate (0.000542) the probability is 5.62E-43. That is less than (1/trillion)^3. Using the actual observed weighted unnatural rate (0.000148), the probability of 81 unnatural deaths is less than (1/trillion)^6.

Warren Commission apologists have suggested that there were many more than 1400 material witnesses and therefore the probabilities are not valid – without providing a list.
Even assuming an impossible 25,000 material witnesses, then given the 0.000062 homicide rate, there was a 1 in 500,000 probability of 46 witness homicides in the 14 years following the assassination.

But this is a conservative estimate based on 46 of 81 unnatural deaths. If 24 of the 35 “accidents” and “suicides” were actually homicides, the probability of 70 homicides is 7.77E-16 (1 in 1000 TRILLION). So much for the bogus 25,000 witnesses argument. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/jfk-assassination-a-probability-analysis-of-warren-commission-witness-unnatural-deaths/

Richard Charnin at 10:26 PM August 8, 2013
Exposing the Media and Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up: Facts, Logic, Mathematics

Suppose that on Nov. 22, 1963, 1400 individuals were selected from the U.S. population and that within one year, at least 15 would die unnaturally (homicide, accident, suicides. Based on unnatural mortality rates, only one such death would be expected.

There are two possibilities. The 15 unnatural deaths were…
1) unrelated. It was just a 1 in 167 trillion coincidence.
2) related. There was a common factor -a connection- between them.
We can confidently rule out 1). But if the 15 unnatural deaths were related, what was the connection?
Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.
– Arthur Conan Doyle

In 1977, an HSCA statistician said it was impossible to determine a defined universe of JFK-related witnesses. Therefore the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in three years was invalid.But the Warren Commission had 552 total witnesses. At least 18 died unnaturally in 14 years; the probability is 1 in 140 BILLION.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/exposing-the-media-and-coincidence-theorists-cts-in-the-jfk-cover-up-facts-logic-mathematics/

Richard Charnin at 10:07 PM August 8, 2013
JFK Mysterious Witness Deaths and the HSCA
In 1964, the Warren Commission ignored the testimony of 51 eyewitnesses who claimed that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll area. Just 32 said they came from the Texas School Book Depository. In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forced to conclude that there was a “probable” conspiracy based on acoustic evidence – a 96% probability of at least four shots (including at least one from the Grassy Knoll). The physical evidence indicates more than four shots. Some shooters probably used silencers.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the HSCA was not about to refute the Warren Commission’s outrageous Single Bullet Theory. It still maintained that Oswald fired from the TSBD – and the other shooter(s) must have missed. I

So it is not surprising that prior to the presentation of the acoustic evidence, the HSCA would use obfuscation and factual omission in an attempt to refute an actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. If the odds were essentially correct, it would force the HSCA to conclude a conspiracy.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/

Richard Charnin at 9:59 PM August 8, 2013
JFK Assassination Paradigm Shift: Deaths of Witnesses Called to Testify

This post will describe the methodology used to calculate mortality rates and associated probabilities of the deaths of witnesses who testified or were sought in four JFK-related investigations. The method represents a paradigm shift in analyzing witness deaths and is mathematical proof of a conspiracy beyond any doubt.

The only relevant variables needed for calculating probabilities are the number (N) called to testify, the number (n) who died unnaturally, the time period (T), and the unnatural mortality rate (R).

Warren Commission (WC) apologists and “coincidence” theorists (CTs) have offered tortured explanations to refute the relevance of witness deaths by challenging the witness connection to the assassination and/or cause of death. But their explanations are an exercise in futility; they miss the forest for the trees. Focusing on any particular death is an irrelevant distraction.

First, they are debunked by the known number of witnesses who testified or were sought to testify in the four investigations. Second, the fact they were sought is obvious proof that they were relevant.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/jfk-assassination-paradigm-shift-deaths-of-witnesses-called-to-testify/

David Winter1 at 1:49 PM August 8, 2013
“And on its face, their science does sound good. “

But that’s the problem, their science IS NOT very good. The evidence that there was more than one shooter, AND that there was a cover up is overwhelming. Even the United States government finally admitted in 1976 that there was a conspiracy and cover up.

Oswald was photographed on the ground floor by the front door. He was then seen, by a police man, drinking a Coke within second of the shots being fired. It is physically not possible for him to have been by the window at the time.

And let’s forget the fact that the Zapruder film clearly shows that the last shot (or at least fatal shot) came from the front. I spent many years in the Navy. I fired a lot of weapons. Heads do not move backwards towards the round and the skull explode out the back when a round enters the rear of the head. It just doesn’t happen and if this supposed firearms expert is claiming this then he’s no expert at all.

The ‘lone nut’ theory is more easily debunked than the creationist theory. PBS is reaching for straws if they think they can actually win this argument.

Tim Fleming1 at 12:24 PM August 8, 2013
Lone nutters like DeNooyer and McAdams have been peddling lies for decades. They do history a disservice and they protect those monsters (some of whom are still alive) who pulled it off. To believe these coincidence theorists, one must overlook a mountain of evidence which indicates a conspiracy took JFK’s life. Shame on PBS.
Tim Fleming
author, The President’s Mortician
http://www.neverlandpublishing.com

Bill Kelly3 at 9:49 PM August 7, 2013
How can science determine that the motive for the assassination was a “grudge”?

Why can’t an alleged scientific investigation into the assassination tell us more than we knew before rather than just reaffirm a lone shooter, which does preclude a conspiracy?
And how does believing in a conspiracy make one feel safer or more secure?

And how come these scientific documentaries on the assassination fail to explore the DNA testing of the bullet fragments by the ARRB in 1998, which would really be interesting but nobody wants to explore it?

And what about a scientific review of the acoustical testing by the HSCA?

And why not a proper forensic autopsy of the victims today, when better scientific x-rays, MRIs, DNA and other tests are available?

Science doesn’t oppose conspiracy theories, producers who don’t want to explore the best lines of inquiry and only interview professors with a grudge like McAdams are the ones who oppose conspiracy theories.

Science promotes the truth. Dig up the body and give it to science for a few hours and many of the outstanding questions will be answered. And releasing the remaining government records withheld for reasons of national security will answer the rest.
Bill Kelly

Richard Charnin at 9:31 PM August 7, 2013
McAdams and the Lone Nutters who still push the insane Magic Bullet Theory have been debunked a long time ago.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on August 10, 2013 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
August 2, 2013
Updated: March 22, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

I posted the following analysis on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His response was typical disinformation. He claimed that I am afraid to have the analysis peer-reviewed. My work has been open in full to everyone with Internet access for years. No one has ever come forth to refute the election fraud or JFK analysis. Since McAdams is apparently incapable of doing a peer-review himself, he should not have belittled the analysis, but rather asked one of the math or political science professors at Marquette University to do it. He is afraid to. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of the 274 state exit polls in the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (MoE), with 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, only 14 polls were expected to exceed the MoE. The MoE is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the adjusted 3.25% MoE is sum of the calculated 2.50% MoE and 30% (0.75) cluster factor.

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

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

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

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

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

JFK Assassination Witnesses

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

But in fact the number of witnesses was knowable. Approximately 65 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously (38 unnaturally, 27 were homicides). Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (20 unnatural). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) 32 of approximately 600 witnesses called to testify died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

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

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

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

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

There were at least 79 officially ruled unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 17 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability is E-63 assuming the average weighted unnatural mortality rate (0.000245). It is E-27 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000818). Many of the suicides and accidents were actually homicides. The reason: the number of official deaths far exceeded the statistical expectation.

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

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 84 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 100 trillion.

Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 80 Homicides for N witnesses (1964-78)
N….Probability

1400 1.68E-100
2000 1.94E-88

3000 6.70E-75
3500 8.07E-70
4000 1.87E-65
4500 1.23E-61
5000 2.99E-58

5500 3.25E-55
6000 1.82E-52
6500 5.85E-50
7000 1.17E-47
7500 1.55E-45

8000 1.44E-43
10000 6.48E-37
15000 1.42E-25
20000 2.52E-18
25000 4.17E-13 (1 in 2,396,168,995,675)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 2, 2013 in Election Myths, JFK

 

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

Historical Overview of Election Fraud Analysis

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

Historical Overview

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the Final National Exit Poll adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Track Record: 2004-2012 Election Forecast and True Vote Models

Track Record: 2004-2012 Election Forecast and True Vote Models

Richard Charnin
Jan. 19, 2013

This is a summary of 2004-2012 pre-election projections and corresponding recorded votes, exit polls and True Vote Models.

Note that the Election Model forecasts are based on final state pre-election Likely Voter (LV) polls, a subset of the total Registered Voters (RV) polled. The LVs always understate Democratic voter turnout; many new (mostly Democratic) voters are rejected by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). In addition, pre-election polls utilize previous election recorded votes in sampling design, rather than total votes cast. Total votes cast include net uncounted votes which are 70-80% Democratic. The combination of the LVCM and uncounted votes results in pre-election polls understating Democratic turnout – and their projected vote share.

2004 Election Model
Kerry Projected 51.8% (2-party), 337 EV (simulation mean), 322 EV snapshot
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 48.3-50.7%, 252 EV
Unadjusted State exit poll aggregate: 51.1-47.6%, 349 EV snapshot, 336 EV expected Theoretical)
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.7-47.0%
True Vote Model: 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV

2004 Election Model Graphs
State aggregate poll trend
Electoral vote and win probability
Electoral and popular vote
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
National poll trend
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram

2006 Midterms
Democratic Generic 120-Poll Trend Projection Model: 56.4-41.6%
Adjusted Final National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.2-45.9%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.4-41.6%
Wikipedia recorded vote: 57.7-41.8%

2008 Election Model
Obama Projected: 53.1-44.9%, 365.3 expected EV; 365.8 EV simulation mean; 367 EV snapshot
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.9-45.6%, 365 EV
Unadjusted State exit poll aggregate: 58.1-40.3%, 419 EV snapshot, 419 expected EV
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61.0-37.5%
True Vote Model: 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV

2008 Election Model Graphs
Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares)
Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability
Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram

2010 Midterms Overview
True Vote Model Analysis

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 EV expected; 321.6 EV simulation 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

2012 Model Overview
Electoral Vote Trend
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Frequency Distribution

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 19, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

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

Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference

Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference

Richard Charnin

Oct. 30, 2012
Updated: Aug.22, 2013

My comments in bold follow selected paragraphs from Chapter 1 of a new text Exit Polls:Surveying the American Electorate, 1972-2010 by Samuel J. Best, University of Connecticut and Brian S. Krueger, University of Rhode Island.

“Despite the unique insights that exit polls can provide about the composition and preferences of voters, they are seldom used after the days immediately following an election. Once media organizations have tapped the exit polls for explanations of electoral outcomes, they often disappear from the public eye. Some scholars may use them over the next year or two to explore the voting behavior of certain subgroups, such as Hispanics, women, or young people, but for the most part they recede into memory, rarely used beyond the next national election.”

“Unfortunately, few efforts are made to consider the behavior of voters over time. Historical context typically centers on comparing an election to its most recent predecessor, such as contrasting the 2008 presidential election with the 2004 contest. Rarely are exit poll responses tracked and analyzed over time, leaving many important questions understudied. For example, how have various subgroups in the electorate evolved over time? Have their relative sizes in the active electorate increased or decreased? Have their voting patterns grown increasingly partisan or independent? Which subgroups in the electorate behave similarly through the years?”

I wrote Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll in 2010. My new book Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts was published in 2012.

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

Of the 274 state exit polls, 232 red-shifted to the Republican. A total of 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 would be expected at the 95% confidence level). Of the 135 polls, an astounding 131 red-shifted to the Republican, proving systemic election fraud beyond any doubt, The probability is ZERO (E-116).

“In the weeks and months that follow, exit polls are used time and again to give meaning to the election results. Newly elected officials rely on them to substantiate policy mandates they claim to have received from voters. Partisan pundits scrutinize them for successful and failed campaign strategies. Even political strategists use them to pinpoint key groups and issues that need to be won over to succeed in future elections.”

But what if the final, adjusted exit polls can be shown to be mathematically impossible? In the 1988, 1992, 2004, 2008 elections, the National Exit Poll had to be adjusted to match the recorded vote. This is standard operating procedure – and very few know of it. But in order to conform to the recorded vote in these four elections, there had to be millions more returning Bush voters than were still living. Obviously, an impossibility.Therefore, since the national exit polls were adjusted using impossible numbers, this is absolute proof that the recorded vote must also be impossible. Let’s look at the 2004 numbers.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million (43% of 122 million recorded votes) returning Bush 2000 voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Applying an estimated 5% voter mortality rate, 48 million Bush 2000 voters were living in 2004. Therefore, Bush needed a 110% turnout (52.6/48) turnout of his living 2000 voters to match the 2004 recorded vote, clearly a physical and mathematical impossibility. Assuming 98% turnout, there were only 47 million returning Bush voters. So where did the 5.6 million phantom voters come from?

In fact, Kerry won the unadjusted state and national exit polls. He won the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate of 76,000 respondents by 50.97-47.71%.
UNADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS)
13660.. Kerry Bush...Other
Sample 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33%

UNADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 23.1 18.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48.2 38.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49.7 39.5% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4.7 3.70% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125.7 100% 51.75% 46.79% 1.46%
Votes 125.7 100% 65.07 58.83 1.84

TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 True Vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 22.4 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52.1 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47.4 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3.9 3.10% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125.7 100% 53.57% 45.07% 1.36%
Votes 125.7 100% 67.36 56.67 1.71

ADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (final adjusted vote shares)
(impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout

DNV. 20.8 17.0% 54% 44% 2% - -
Gore 45.2 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48.4 93%
Bush 52.6 43.0% 9% 91% 0% 47.9 110% impossible 2000 voters

Other 3.7 3.00% 64% 14% 22% 3.8 97%
Share 122.3 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%
Votes 122.3 100% 59.03 62.04 1.22

“Unfortunately, these same exit poll results are not easily accessible to members of the public interested in dissecting them. After appearing in the next day’s newspapers or on a politically oriented website, they disappear quickly from sight as the election fades in prominence. Eventually, the exit polls are archived at universities where only subscribers are capable of retrieving the data. But nowhere is a complete set of biennial exit poll results available in an easy-to-use format for curious parties.”

I created the 1988-2008 state and national presidential exit polls spreadsheet database as an analytical resource using Roper as the data source. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded votes

“Second, and far more troublesome for the reputation of the exit polls, the preliminary exit poll results showed a partisan skew. They overstated Bill Clinton’s share of the vote by 2.5 points in the 1992 presidential race and understated George H. W. Bush’s share by 2.5 points, giving the impression that Clinton won by a far greater margin than the officially tabulated votes indicated.”

“The raw exit poll data had never been deemed “accurate” in the past prior to being weighted to the actual results, but with the release of early results, observable, but correctable, sampling errors gave the impression that the numbers were off.”

One very plausible reason that they were “off” were the 10 million net uncounted votes, the majority from minority precincts that are 90%+ Democratic. The voters were polled, but their votes were not counted. Clinton may have lost millions of other votes due to switched and stuffed ballots. In order to match the 1992 recorded vote, the Final National Exit Poll required that 119% of living Bush 1988 voters turned out in 1992.

“VRS claimed the Democratic overstatement in the raw exit poll data was due to partisan differences in the willingness of voters to complete the exit poll, not to a poor selection of precincts or differential response rates by age, race, or gender. Republicans simply refused to participate at the same rates as Democrats, resulting in there being fewer Republicans in the raw exit poll results than there should have been. Mitofsky speculated that the disparity was due to different intensities of support for the candidates—Democratic voters were just more excited about voting for Clinton than Republican voters were about voting for Bush and, as a result, were more motivated to communicate this message by filling out the exit poll questionnaire; others thought it was due to Republicans in general having less confidence in the mass media.”

Mitofsky may have “speculated” but there is no evidence that Democrats were more responsive to the exit pollsters. In fact, since 2000 response rates in GOP strongholds were higher than comparable Democratic rates. GOP exit poll and vote shares were positively correlated (.25) to state exit poll response. The average Democratic correlation was -0.26. Bush vote shares increased as response rates increased. In 2004, exit poll precinct data showed that response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts.

“Despite the source of the partisan bias in the raw results, the exit polls were able to characterize accurately the voting patterns of demographic subgroups and partisan constituencies once they were weighted to match the official returns. The problem was that the data could not be corrected until the official results began coming in. As a result, the exit polls were susceptible to inaccurate vote projections on election night, especially early in the evening right after poll closings. Nonetheless, the cautious analysts at VRS still called all the races correctly in the 1992 election.”

The data could not be corrected until the official votes came in? Or was it that the data could not be rigged until the official votes came in? Of course the cautious analysts called the winner correctly – Clinton won easily – but they did not call the vote shares correctly. Clinton won by a much bigger margin than they said he did.

The 2000 Election Debacle
“Network competition to call winners culminated in the disastrous 2000 presidential election, when these systems of race projections broke down, and the networks wound up retracting their calls for the winner in Florida and presumptively the election, not once, but twice on election night. The trouble began early in the evening, when VNS alerted the networks around 7:50 p.m. that their statistical models predicted Al Gore the winner in Florida and that the networks should consider calling the state for Gore. This prediction took place even though only 4 percent of the actual vote had been counted and numerous precincts in the Florida panhandle, which happened to be in the central time zone, remained open until 8 p.m.”

If the exit polls show a clear winner – as they did in Florida – the fact that just 4% of the votes were recorded is irrelevant. The exit polls were completed by 7:50pm – and panhandle precincts were exit polled throughout the day. Calling the race 10 minutes before the polls closed was of no consequence. Gore won the Florida exit poll (1816 respondents) by a whopping 53.4-43.6%, far beyond the 3% margin of error.

“Less than ten minutes later, the decision desks at all the networks and the AP agreed with VNS and announced Gore the winner in Florida. Over the next hour-and-a-half, VNS discovered that vote-count data from Duval County had been entered incorrectly, making Gore appear as if he had many more votes than he actually did. After fixing this error, the statistical models used by VNS and decision desks at all the networks showed the race could no longer be projected safely for either candidate. By 10:18 p.m., all the networks announced they were moving the state back to the undecided category, prompting Jeff Greenfield of CNN to quip, “Oh waiter, one order of crow.””

Of the 185,000 spoiled ballots in Florida, 113,000 were double and triple punched – and Gore’s name was punched on 75% of them. Almost 30,000 overpunched ballots were in Duval County which has a large black population. Could the spoiled ballots have been the cause of the Duval adjustments?

“At 2:15 a.m., Fox News called Florida and the presidency for Bush. Within five minutes, NBC, CNN, CBS, and ABC followed suit, announcing that Bush would be the forty-third president of the United States. Meanwhile, VNS and the AP chose not to call the race in Florida a second time, wary of the volatility in the data with the contest that close. During the next couple hours, new errors were discovered. VNS had underestimated the number of votes remaining to be counted. Two counties—Volusia and Brevard—had mistakenly entered their vote totals in favor of Bush. Once these mistakes were corrected, the race narrowed considerably, so much so that Bush’s lead was inside the margin of error.”

What about the -16,022 Gore votes in Volusia? The media commentators called it a computer “glitch”. They always do. They never consider that it could have been the result of malicious coding.

“An embarrassment early in the evening had turned to a humiliation by the end, leading NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to remark, “We don’t just have egg on our face; we have an omelet.”

“Despite the resulting indignation, the exit polls were not responsible for the erroneous second call. In fact, the exit polls were at that point no longer part of the estimation models, having been replaced by actual vote counts—incorrect as they were in some cases—over the course of the evening.”

Replaced by actual vote counts? That is what the perpetrators wanted to do all along. The media never reported that Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.5% (5.5 million votes) – way beyond the MoE. Or that he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll 48.5-46.2%, a 2.5 million margin. There were 5.4 million net uncounted votes. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 50.7%.

“However, the partisan skew in the measure of aggregate vote choice was higher than in previous elections. The preliminary data overstated the difference in the George W. Bush-John Kerry vote on election night by 5.5 percentage points, predicting a 51- to 48-percent advantage for Kerry rather than a 50.5- to 48-percent win for Bush.”

Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.0-47.9%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.5%.

“This was the highest error in the preliminary results since the 1992 election and double the error found in the previous two presidential elections. The discrepancy between the preliminary exit poll findings and the final election results was even greater in the competitive states. The exit polls predicted a Kerry victory in four states—Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada—in which Bush won, and overstated Kerry’s support by 11 percentage points in Ohio, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 8 points in Florida.”

“Considering the closeness of the election, the exit polls seemed to suggest that Kerry was capable of winning the 2004 election. Political observers used these differences between the preliminary exit polls and the final results to support allegations of vote rigging and fraud in precincts deploying electronic voting machines, particularly in Ohio, where the state’s twenty-seven electoral votes, enough to change the winner of the Electoral College from Bush to Kerry, was decided by 118,775 ballots.”

The adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But in the 2000 election, Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes. He needed a 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the 2004 recorded vote. Clearly a physical and mathematical impossibility.


“Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania calculated the odds of the exit polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida being as far off the final outcome as they were as 662,000 to 1.”

Note: The state exit poll margin of error (MoE) includes a 30% cluster factor.
In Pennsylvania, there were 2107 respondents (2.75%).
Kerry won the poll by 56.6-42.9%, an 800,000 vote margin.

In Ohio, there were 2020 respondents (2.82%).
Kerry won the poll by 54.1-45.7%, a 450,000 vote margin.

In Florida, there were 2862 respondents (2.38%).
Kerry won the poll by 50.8-48.2%, a 200,000 vote margin.

“The National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan group of mathematicians and statisticians promoting election reform, found that twenty-two of the forty-nine precincts in Ohio polled by Edison/Mitofsky had reported Kerry vote share results that had less than a 5 percent chance of occurring, based on the state’s exit polls.”

“Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., even used the exit polls as the basis for holding congressional hearings on vote irregularities in Ohio. Edison/Mitofsky disputed these charges in a follow-up report, contending that precincts with electronic voting had virtually the same rates of error as those using punch card systems.”

“They again attributed the bias to within-precinct error—error due to a systematic bias in the selection of voters within a precinct—and not to bias in the selection of precincts themselves. Bush voters were more likely to refuse to participate in the exit polls than Kerry voters. They hypothesized that the result was a function of the disproportionate numbers of interviewers under age thirty-five who administered the exit poll. Young people had more problems securing participation from voters than older respondents, perhaps because they were correctly perceived to have been more likely to have voted for Kerry.”

That is the same old discredited and debunked Reluctant Bush Responder canard that was refuted by the exit pollsters own data which showed that exit poll response was highest in partisan Bush precincts – and in strong Republican states.

“Edison/Mitofsky also found that voting patterns within electoral groups were accurate once they were weighted to the official results. They found no evidence that the distribution of presidential vote choices within various demographic groups was biased, despite the vote choice of exit poll respondents overall overstating Democratic support.”

The “overstating” of 56 Kerry respondents for every 50 Bush respondents was not due to differential response; it was due to the fact that Kerry won the election with about 53% of the vote.

“Since 2004, less controversy has surrounded the exit polls. No serious technical problems have surfaced during the last three elections, enabling the media to prepare analyses of the outcome in a timely manner. Leaks of early wave findings have been contained. The preliminary exit polls have continued to overstate support for Democratic candidates; however, the final vote counts have had such large winning margins that the projected outcomes were no different.”

There was less controversy in 2008 only because Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes. But the exit polls indicated that he won by nearly 23 million; the landslide was denied. The level of fraud was equivalent to 2004. Obama won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%. He won the independent True Vote Model with 58.0%, exactly matching the state exit polls. He won the recorded vote by just 52.9-45.6%. How does one explain the massive discrepancy? It was surely not due to differential response.

Selection of Precincts
“National exit pollsters choose precincts by taking stratified probability samples in each of the states before drawing a national subsample from the state samples. This process involves sorting the precincts in each state into different categories or strata to guarantee that particular groups are represented adequately. To begin, precincts in each state are initially grouped into two strata according to their size to ensure the selection of smaller precincts.”

“Within each of these size strata, precincts are categorized by geographic region, usually between three to five regions in each state. For each state geographic region, precincts are ordered by their percentage vote for one of the major political parties in a previous election. Precincts are sampled from these strata with probabilities proportionate to the total votes cast in them in a prior election, so that every precinct has as many chances of being picked by pollsters as it has voters. The samples drawn in each state are then combined, and a national sample of precincts is selected from them using a previous presidential race to determine the relative number of precincts chosen from each state.”

Sampling voters in proportion to the recorded vote in prior elections is a persistent source of bias, since the recorded votes were fraudulent and favored the Republicans. So the sampled exit polled precincts were over-weighted for the GOP.

“Typically, the total number of precincts selected in the national exit poll is between 250 and 300. Ultimately, the number of precincts chosen represents a tradeoff between sampling error and financial constraints. Research by Edison/Mitofsky has shown that the number of precincts selected has not been responsible for the Democratic overstatements that have continually appeared in the exit polls.”

“For example, they found that for the 2004 election the actual distribution of the presidential vote in the precincts used in the exit poll samples did not differ significantly from the actual vote distribution nationwide. In fact, these precincts overstated support for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, but only by 0.4 points, on average, across the states.”

Mitofsky believed that the exit poll precinct samples were perfect. But he also hypothesized that 56 Democrats responded for every 50 Republicans – even though his own data indicates that response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts.

“Refusal rates, or for that matter miss rates, are not necessarily problematic, as long as the propensity of different groups to participate does not vary. However, if one group is more or less likely than other groups to complete exit surveys, their responses will be over or under-represented, thereby biasing estimates for the overall electorate. For example, the partisan overstatement repeatedly found in the national exit polls over the past several decades appears to be due to the greater willingness of Democratic voters to complete the exit polls, compared with their Republican counterparts. However, once this discrepancy has been corrected by weighting the exit polls to correspond with the actual vote, there has been no evidence that the vote estimates within groups are biased.”

Greater Democratic willingness to be exit polled is a myth -not a fact. The exit pollsters own data shows otherwise. In 2000, 2004 and 2008, Republican exit poll shares and vote shares were positively correlated (.25) to state exit poll response. Bush vote shares increased as response rates increased, refuting the Reluctant Republican Responder hypothesis. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

“National exit pollsters account for early/absentee voting by conducting telephone surveys in states where the rates of early voting are highest. VNS first incorporated early/absentee voting in 1996, surveying voters in California, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. By 2008, NEP was conducting telephone surveys in eighteen states, including Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, where the proportions of early voting were so high that no in-person exit polls were conducted on election day.”

Early voting data in the 2008 election indicates that Oregon, Washington, and Colorado had the lowest red-shifts. Was it just a coincidence that the states with the highest early voting rates were the ones which most closely matched the unadjusted exit polls?

Take the Election Fraud Probability Quiz.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

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

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

 
11 Comments

Posted by on August 18, 2012 in Election Myths, Media

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis

Richard Charnin
June 23, 2012
Updated: Aug.22,2013

In any statistical study, the best data must first be collected. The following election fraud analysis is based on the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database.

The data source is the Roper Center Public Opinion Archives. Exit polls are available for 274 state presidential elections, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections and 24 in 1988. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

Exit polls are surveys conducted in selected voting precincts that are chosen to represent the overall state voting population demographic. Voters are randomly selected as they leave the precinct polling booth and asked to complete a survey form indicating 1) who they just voted for, 2) how they voted in the previous election, 3) income range, 4) age group, 5) party-id (Democrat, Republican, Independent), 6) philosophy (liberal, moderate, conservative), and many other questions.

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

In this analysis we consider the most important question: who did you vote for? Having this information, we calculate the discrepancy between the state exit poll and the recorded vote count. Note that respondents are not asked to provide personal information. There is no excuse for not releasing exit poll/voting results for each of the 1400+ exit poll precincts. There is no privacy issue.

Key results

- Republican presidential vote shares exceeded the corresponding unadjusted exit poll shares in 232 of the 274 state elections for which there is exit poll data. The probability that 232 would red-shift to the Republicans is ZERO. One would normally expect that approximately 137 would shift to the Republicanss.

- Of the 274, there were 55 state elections in which Republicans won the vote and the Democrats won the exit poll. Conversely, the Republicans lost only two elections (Iowa and Minnesota in 2000) in which they won the exit poll. The probability of this occurrence is virtually ZERO. If the elections were fair, the number of flips would be nearly equal.

- The exit poll margin of error (described below) was exceeded in 135 of the 274 polls. The probability is ZERO. The statistical expectation is that the margin of error (MoE) would be exceeded in 14 polls (5%).

- 131 of the 135 exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded moved to the recorded vote in favor of the Republican (“red shift”). There is a ZERO probability that the one-sided shift was due to chance. It is powerful evidence beyond any doubt of pervasive systemic election fraud.

The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:

Basic Statistics and the True Vote Model
The True Vote Model (TVM) is based on current and previous election votes cast (Census), voter mortality and returning voter turnout. Published National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares were applied to new and returning voters. The TVM closely matched the corresponding unadjusted exit polls in each election. It shows that the exit poll discrepancies were primarily due to implausible and/or impossible adjustments required to force the NEP to match the recorded vote. The exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes by adjusting the implied number of returning voters from the previous election. These adjustments are clearly indicated by the percentage mix of returning voters in the current election..

The bedrock of statistical polling analysis is the Law of Large Numbers. As the number of observations in a survey increases, the average will approach the theoretical mean value. For instance, in coin flipping, as the number of flips increase, the average percentage of heads will approach the theoretical 50% mean value.

The Normal distribution is considered the most prominent probability distribution in statistics (“the bell curve”). It is used throughout statistics, natural sciences, and social sciences as a simple model for complex phenomena. For example, the observational error in an election polling is usually assumed to follow a normal distribution, and uncertainty is computed using this assumption. Note that a normally-distributed variable has a symmetric distribution about its mean.

The Binomial distribution distribution calculates the probability P that a given number of events (successes) would occur in n trials given that each trial has a constant probability p of success. For instance, the probability of flipping heads (a success) is 50%. In a fair election, the probability that the exit poll would flip from the Democrat to the Republican is also 50%.

The Poisson distribution calculates the probability of a series of events in which each event has a very low probability. For instance, there is a 5% (1 in 20) probability that the recorded vote share will differ from the exit poll beyond the MoE.

The Binomial distribution converges towards the Poisson as the number of trials (n) approaches infinity while the product (np) remains fixed (p is the probability). Therefore the Poisson distribution with parameter λ = np can be used as an approximation to the Binomial distribution B(n,p) if n is sufficiently large and p sufficiently small.

The exit poll margin of error is based on the number of respondents and the “cluster effect” (assumed as 0.30). The Margin of Error Calculator illustrates the effects of sample size and poll share on the margin of error and corresponding win probability.

Impossible 2004 National Exit Poll

This is how the 2004 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. Kerry won the state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.5% (3.6% margin). The 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) is a subset of the state polls. The unadjusted NEP showed that Kerry won by a 4.8% margin. But the NEP was adjusted to match the recorded vote with nearly 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004. Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died, so at most there were 48 million returning Bush voters. But not all returned to vote.

Assuming 98% of living Bush 2000 voters turned out in 2004, then there were 47 million returning Bush voters or 38.4% of the 122.3 million who voted. But according to the adjusted NEP, there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters (43% of the voters). There is a major disconnect here; we have just shown that there were approximately 47 million.

So where did the 5.6 (52.6-47) million Bush voters come from? The bottom line: In order to adjust the National Exit Poll to conform to the recorded vote, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. Therefore since the adjusted exit poll was impossible, so was the recorded vote.

UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS)
13660.. Kerry Bush...Other
Sample 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33%

UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 23.1 18.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48.2 38.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49.7 39.5% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4.7 3.70% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125.7 100% 51.75% 46.79% 1.46%
Votes 125.7 100% 65.07 58.83 1.84

2004 TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 True Vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 22.4 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52.0 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47.4 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3.9 3.10% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125.7 100% 53.57% 45.07% 1.36%
Votes 125.7 100% 67.36 56.67 1.71

ADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (final adjusted vote shares)
(impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout

DNV. 20.8 17.0% 54% 44% 2% - -
Gore 45.2 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48.4 93%
Bush 52.6 43.0% 9% 91% 0% 47.9 110% (impossible 2000 voter turnout)
Other 3.7 3.00% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97%
Share 122.3 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%
Votes 122.3 100% 59.0 62.0 1.2

Ohio 2004 presidential election
Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.7% (119,000 vote margin). In the exit poll, 2020 voters were sampled, of whom 1092 voted for Kerry (54.1%) and 924 for Bush (45.7%). There was a 10.6% discrepancy in margin between the poll and the vote. Given the exit poll result, we can calculate the probability that a) Kerry won the election and b) of Bush getting his recorded vote share.

The Ohio exit poll MoE was 2.8% which means there is a 95.4% probability that Kerry’s True Vote was within 2.8% of his exit poll share (between 51.3% and 56.9%) and a 97.5% probability that it was at least 51.3%. The Normal distribution calculates a 99.8% probability that Kerry won Ohio.
P = 99.8% = Normdist (.541,.500,.028/1.96, true)

Bush won Ohio with a 50.8% recorded share – a 5.1% increase (red-shift) over his 45.7% exit poll share. The probability that the 5.1% shift was due to chance is 1 in 4852 (.02%). So which most closely represented how the True Vote: the exit poll or the recorded vote?

1988 presidential election
Just 24 state exit polls are listed for 1988 on the Roper Center site, which comprised 68.7 million (75%) of the 91.6 million national recorded votes. Dukakis led the 24-poll aggregate by 51.6-47.3%. Bush won the corresponding recorded vote by 52.3-46.8%, a 9.8% discrepancy. The exit poll MoE was exceeded in 11 of the 24 states – all in favor of Bush (see the summary statistics below).

Dukakis won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 49.8-49.2%, but Bush won the recorded vote by 53.4-45.6%, a 7 million vote margin. According to the Census, 102.2 million votes were cast and 91.6 million recorded, therefore a minimum of 10.6 million ballots were uncounted. Dukakis had approximately 8 million (75%) of the uncounted votes (see below). That may be one of the reasons why Dukakis won the state and national exit polls and lost the recorded vote.

Calculating the probabilities
Given the state recorded vote, exit poll and margin of error for each of 274 elections, we can calculate the probability of the red shift.

The probability P that 55 of 57 exit polls would flip from the Democrats leading in the exit polls to the Republicans winning the recorded vote is given by the Binomial distribution: P= 1-Binomdist(54,57,.5,true)
P= 1.13E-14 = 0.000000000000011 or 1 in 88 trillion!

The probability that the exit poll margin of error would be exceeded in any given state is 5% or 1 in 20. Therefore, approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls would be expected to exceed the margin of error, 7 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat. The Republicans did better in the recorded vote than in the exit polls in 232 of the 274 elections. The probability of this one-sided red-shift is ZERO.

The MoE was exceeded in 131 exit polls in favor of the Republicans. The Poisson spreadsheet function calculates the probability:
P = E-116 = Poisson (131, .025*274, false)
The probability is ZERO. There are 115 zeros to the right of the decimal!

Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is an important tool for viewing the effects of alternative assumptions on key results from a mathematical model.

In pre-election polls, the margin of error (MoE) is based strictly on the number of respondents. In exit polls, however, a "cluster factor" is added to the calculated MoE. Therefore, the number of states in which the MoE was exceeded in 1988-2008 (and the corresponding probabilities) is a function of the cluster effect.

The MoE was exceeded in 135 of 274 exit polls assuming a 30% "cluster factor" (the base case). Although 30% is the most common estimate, political scientists and statisticians may differ on the appropriate cluster factor to be used in a given exit poll. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis worksheet of various cluster factor assumptions (ranging from 0% to 200%) is displayed in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Poll Spreadsheet Reference. The purpose is to determine the number of exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded over a range of cluster factors. Even with extremely conservative cluster factor assumptions, the sensitivity analysis indicates a ZERO probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in the six elections. Were the massive discrepancies due to inferior polling by the most experienced mainstream media exit pollsters in the world? Or are they further mathematical confirmation of systemic election fraud - beyond any doubt?

Overwhelming Evidence
The one-sided results of the 375,000 state exit poll respondents over the last six presidential elections leads to only one conclusion: the massive exit poll discrepancies cannot be due to faulty polling and is overwhelming evidence that systemic election fraud has favored the Republicans in every election since 1988.

Fraud certainly cost the Democrats at least two elections (2000, 2004) and likely a third (1988). And in the three elections they won, their margin was reduced significantly by election fraud.

To those who say that quoting these impossible probabilities invites derision, that it is overkill, my response is simply this: those are the actual results that the mathematical functions produced based on public data. The mathematical probabilities need to be an integral part of any election discussion or debate and need to be addressed by media pundits and academics.

Media polling pollsters, pundits and academics need to do a comparable scientific analysis of historical exit polls and create their own True Vote models. So-called independent journalists need to discuss the devil in the details of systemic election fraud. They can start by trying to debunk the analysis presented here.

Presidential Summary

Election.. 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Average
Recorded Vote
Democrat.. 45.7 43.0 49.3 48.4 48.3 52.9 47.9
Republican 53.4 37.4 40.7 47.9 50.7 45.6 46.0

Unadjusted Aggregate State Exit Polls (weighted by voting population)
Democrat.. 50.3 47.6 52.6 50.8 51.1 58.0 51.7
Republican 48.7 31.7 37.1 44.4 47.5 40.3 41.6

Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Democrat.. 49.8 46.3 52.6 48.5 51.7 61.0 51.7
Republican 49.2 33.5 37.1 46.3 47.0 37.2 41.7

1988-2008 Red-shift Summary (274 exit polls)
The following table lists the
a) Number of states in which the exit poll red-shifted to the Republican,
b) Number of states which red-shifted beyond the margin of error,
c) Probability of n states red-shifting beyond the MoE,
d) Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share,
e) Democratic recorded share,
f) Difference between Democratic exit poll and recorded share.

Year RS >MoE Probability.... Exit Vote Diff
1988* 21.. 12... 2.5E-12..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may have won
1992 45.. 27... 1.1E-26..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton landslide
1996 44.. 19... 2.5E-15..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton landslide
2000 34.. 17... 4.9E-13..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore win stolen
2004 42.. 23... 3.5E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry landslide stolen
2008 46.. 37... 2.4E-39..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama landslide denied
Total 232 135.. 3.7E-116.... 51.7 47.9 3.8
* 274 exit polls (24 in 1988, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections)

The Democrats led the 1988-2008 vote shares as measured by:
1) Recorded vote: 47.9-45.9%
2) Exit Pollster (WPE/IMS): 50.8-43.1%
3) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: 51.7-41.6%
4) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.6-41.7%

True Vote Model (method based on previous election returning voters)
5) Method 1: 50.2-43.4% (recorded vote)
6) Method 2: 51.6-42.0% (allocation of uncounted votes)
7) Method 3: 52.5-41.1% (unadjusted exit poll)
8) Method 4: 53.0-40.6% (recursive True Vote)

The Democrats won the exit poll but lost the recorded vote in the following states. The corresponding decline in electoral votes cost the Democrats to lose the 1988, 2000, 2004 elections:

1988 (7): CA IL MD MI NM PA VT
Dukakis' electoral vote was reduced from 271 in the exit polls to 112 in the recorded vote. The U.S. Vote Census indicated that there were 10.6 million net uncounted votes in 1988. Since only 24 states were exit polled, a proxy equivalent was estimated for each of the other 26 states by allocating 75% of the uncounted votes to Dukakis. The average 3.47% MoE of the 24 exit polls was assumed for each of the 26 states. Four of the 26 flipped to Bush: CO LA MT SD.

The rationale for deriving the estimate is Method 2 of the 1988-2008 True Vote Model in which 75% of uncounted votes were allocated to the Democrat. The resulting 51.6% average Democratic share (see above) exactly matched the unadjusted exit polls (TVM #3). This article by Bob Fitrakis provides evidence that uncounted votes are heavily Democratic.

1992 (10): AK AL AZ FL IN MS NC OK TX VA
Clinton's EV flipped from from 501 to 370.

1996 (11): AL CO GA IN MS MT NC ND SC SD VA
Clinton's EV flipped from 464 to 379.

2000 (12): AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA (Gore needed just ONE to win)
Gore's EV flipped from 382 to 267.

2004 (8): CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA (Kerry would have won if he carried FL or OH)
Kerry's EV flipped from 349 to 252.

2008 (7): AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE
Obama's EV flipped from 419 to 365.

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

This is a summary of 2004-2012 pre-election projections and corresponding recorded votes, exit polls and True Vote Models.

2004 Election Model
Kerry Projected 51.8% (2-party), 337 EV (simulation mean)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.1-47.6%, 337 EV
National Exit Poll: 51.7-47.0%
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 48.3-50.7%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV

2004 Election Model Graphs
State aggregate poll trend
Electoral vote and win probability
Electoral and popular vote
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
National poll trend
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram

2006 Midterms
Democratic Generic 120-Poll Trend Model: 56.4-41.6%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.4-41.6%
Wikipedia recorded vote: 57.7-41.8%
Adjusted Final National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.2-45.9%

2008 Election Model
Obama Projected: 53.1-44.9%, 365.3 expected EV; 365.8 EV (simulation mean)
State exit poll aggregate: 58.1-40.3%, 420 EV
National Exit Poll: 61.0-37.5%
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.9-45.6%, 365 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV

2008 Election Model Graphs
Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares)
Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability
Obama's projected electoral vote and win probability
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram

2010 Midterms Overview
True Vote Model Analysis

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

2012 Model Overview
Electoral Vote Trend
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Frequency Distribution

 
12 Comments

Posted by on June 25, 2012 in True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

A True Vote Model Tool for Analyzing Election Fraud: 1988-2008 Exit Poll Database

A Database and True Vote Model for Analyzing 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies

Richard Charnin

Updated: April 10, 2012

Unadjusted exit polls are based on actual respondent totals. Final Exit Polls are always forced to match the recorded vote. The unadjusted exit polls are confirmed in other surveys and the True Vote Model.

This workbook includes 1988-2008 unadjusted “pristine” state exit poll data and reflects actual voter response.
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

The True Vote Model

The TVM is based on Census votes cast, mortality, prior election voter turnout and National Exit Poll vote shares. The TVM closely matched the unadjusted exit polls in each election from 1988-2008. 

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

Roper Center: The Data Source
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/state_exitpolls.html#.Tr60gD3NltP

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 126 of 274 state exit polls, with 123 shifting in favor of the Republicans and just 3 for the Democrats. At the 95% confidence level, one would expect that the margin of error would be exceeded in 7-8 states in favor of the GOP and 7-8 for the Democrat. The probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in a state election is 5% (2.5% for the Democrat and 2.5% for the Republican).

The Probability P that 123 of 274 exit polls would shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error) is calculated as:
P = 5.4E-106 = Poisson (123,.025*274, false) or
1 in 1.8 BILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION!

Therefore it is proof beyond ANY DOUBT that election fraud is systemic and virtually always favors the GOP. Based on the UNADJUSTED exit polls, the Democrats should have won ALL SIX elections.

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

Data Summary

From the Intro worksheet:
The Democrats led in all the 1988-2008 presidential election averages…
1) recorded vote: 47.9 – 45.9%
2) unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: 51.8 – 41.6%; unadjusted national exit poll: 51.7- 41.7%
3) True Vote Model (methods 2-3): 51.6 – 42.9%
4) True Vote Model (method 4): 53.0 – 41.0%
5) Exit Poll (WPE/IMS method): 50.8 – 43.1%

These states flipped to the GOP from the exit poll to the recorded vote:

1988: CA CO IL LA MD MI MT NM PA SD VT 
Dukakis had a 51-47% edge in 24 battleground state polls.
He lost by 7 million votes.

1992: AK AL AZ FL IN MS NC OK TX VA 
Clnton had a 18 million vote margin in the state exit polls.
He won the recorded vote by just 6 million.

1996: AK AL CO GA ID IN MS MT NC ND SC SD VA 
Clinton had a 16 million vote margin in the state exit polls.
He won by just 8 million recorded votes.

2000: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA 
Gore needed just ONE of these states to win the election.
He won the state exit polls by 6 million, matching the TVM. 

2004: CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA
Kerry needed FL or OH to win.
He won the national and state exit polls by 5-6 million with 51-52%.
He won the TVM by 10 million with 53.6%.

2008: AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE 
Obama had 58% in the state exit polls, a 23 million margin (9.5 recorded).
He had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll.
The True Vote Model indicated that he had 58.0% exactly matching the unadjusted state exit polls.

To force State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote, all demographic category weights and/or vote shares have to be adjusted.

Bush Approval Ratings
For example, to adjust Kerry’s 51.1 – 47.5% unadjusted exit poll margin to Bush’s 50.7- 48.3% recorded margin in the Final National Exit Poll.

Bush’s 50.3% unadjusted approval rating was increased to 53%.
Corresponding vote shares were increased as well.

Bush had just 48% approval in the final pre-election polls.
With 48% approval applied to the NEP shares, Kerry had 53.7% (see the sensitivity analysis table below).

Party-ID
Dem/Rep Party-ID was changed from 38.5-35.1% to 37-37% to match the vote.
There was a near-perfect correlation between Bush’s unadjusted state exit poll shares, approval ratings and Party-ID.

Note:
US Count Votes analysis of the Ohio 2004 exit poll discrepancies:
http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/OH/2004Election/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

UCSV proved the impossibility of the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. The rBr theory was promoted to explain the cause of the 6.5% exit poll discrepancies. It stated that 56 Kerry voters responded to be interviewed for every 50 Bush voters.
http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/USCV_exit_poll_analysis.pdf

The Exit Poll Response Optimizer confirmed the USCV simulation.
http://www.richardcharnin.com/ExitPollResponseOptimization.htm

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 7, 2011 in True Vote Models

 

Tags: ,

The 2012 Presidential True Vote Model: How Obama Could Lose

The 2012 Presidential True Vote Model: How Obama Could Lose

Richard Charnin

Oct. 4, 2011
Updated: Aug. 11, 2012

The 2012 Presidential True Vote Model was created to take a first look at the election before the state and national pre-election polls became widely available. The model indicates that Obama needs a 55% True Vote to overcome the 5% fraud factor to win the majority of the popular vote.

On April 27, 2012, the Presidential True Vote Simulation Election Model (TVM) was created. The model utilized pre-election state and national polls in a Monte Carlo simulation to forecast the electoral vote and win probability. The combination of a True Vote Model and pre-election polling simulation is a unique forecasting tool to determine the likelihood of Obama overcoming the fraud factor and winning re-election.

In 2008, Obama had a 52.9% recorded vote share. Using the recorded share as a basis, Obama loses by 2.6 million votes, a 9 million vote switch in margin from the True Vote scenario. Bottom line: Obama needs at least a 55% True Vote share to win in 2012 if, as in 2008, he loses 5% due to fraud.

The National Exit Poll (NEP) is ALWAYS forced to match the recorded vote. It indicated that returning Bush 2004 voters comprised 46% of the 2008 electorate compared to just 37% for returning Kerry voters. This astounding anomaly is never discussed by academics, political scientists and media pundits.

In the TVM, the impossible 46/37 return voter mix was replaced with a feasible mix based on Kerry’s true 53.6% share, 5% voter mortality and an estimated 97% “habitual voter” turnout rate. Obama had a 58% True Vote share. The assumed TVM shares of new and returning voters were identical to the 2008 Final NEP shares.

Obama had 58.1% of 81,388 state exit poll respondents (weighted by state votes cast). The NEP is a subset (17,836 respondents) of the state exit polls. Obama had a remarkable 61.0% in the unadjusted NEP.

Of the 17,836 NEP respondents, 4,178 were asked how they voted in 2004: 43.4% said they voted for Kerry, 36.6% for Bush, 4.5% for Other and 13.4% did not vote. The percentages implied that Kerry won by 50.2-44.6%.

Using the implied 2004 shares, Obama’s share increases from 52.9% to 58.0% – exactly matching the True Vote Model and the unadjusted/weighted state exit poll aggregate!

An impossible returning/new voter mix was required in the 2008 NEP to force it to match the 52.9% recorded share.

2008 Unadjusted State and National exit polls vs. recorded and True Vote:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

For 2012, consider the following base case scenario:
- Obama’s 58% True Vote share is the basis for calculating returning voters.
- 90% of living 2008 Obama voters and 97% of McCain voters turn out in 2012.
- Obama wins 85% of his 2008 voters and 10% of returning McCain voters.
- Obama splits returning third-party (Other) and New (DNV) voters with the Republican candidate.
Based on these assumptions, Obama wins the election by 6.4 million votes with a 52.4% True Vote share.

Table 1: Nine vote share scenarios
In each scenario, 90% of living Obama voters and 97% of living McCain voters turn out.
In the worst case scenario, Obama wins 80% of returning Obama voters and 5% of returning McCain voters. Obama loses by 5 million votes with a 48.1% share.
In the most likely base case scenario, Obama has 85% of Obama and 10% of McCain voters. Obama wins by 6.4 million with a 52.4% share.
In the best case scenario, Obama wins 90% of returning Obama voters and 15% of returning McCain voters. Obama wins by 17.7 million with a 56.6% share.

Table 2: Nine voter turnout scenarios
In each scenario, Obama wins 85% of returning Obama and 10% of McCain voters.
In the worst case scenario, 85% of Obama and 100% of McCain voters turn out. Obama wins by 2.6 million with a 51.0% share.
In the most likely base case scenario, 90% of Obama and 97% of McCain voters turn out. Obama wins by 6.4 million with a 52.4% share.
In the best case scenario 95% of Obama and 92% of McCain voters turn out, Obama wins by 10.9 million with a 54.0% share.

Note that these scenarios are based on the 2008 True Vote. Unfortunately, pollsters, academics and media pundits do not consider or mention the True vote or Election Fraud for that matter. It’s not in their vocabulary. They can’t mention one without the other (the Recorded vote is equal to the True Vote plus an Election Fraud factor). To these forecasters, the recorded vote is sacrosanct. They base all of their pre-election and post-election analysis on the recorded vote. That is what they 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 752 other followers