# Tag Archives: touch screen voting machines

## Final Forecast: The 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Model

Final Forecast: The 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov.5, 2012

Are there any forecasters in the corporate media who discuss systemic election fraud and include a True Vote analysis in their models? I have not seen any. The pundits ignore election fraud completely by limiting their projections to the recorded vote. But they are missing the big story which can be expressed by the simple formula:

Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud factor

The forecast: Obama has 320.7 expected electoral votes (see the definition of the expected value below) and a 332 snapshot EV. His 99.4% win probability is based on 497 electoral vote wins out of 500 trial simulations. His projected popular vote share margin is 51-48%, a 69-65 million vote margin.

But the recorded vote is not the True Vote. The True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The True Vote Model indicates Obama would have approximately 371 EV, a 55% vote share and win by 74-59 million votes in a fraud-free election.

Obama’s 332 snapshot EV assumes he will win all the battleground states except for NC. The races are very close in CO (9), FL (29), NC (15), NH (4), NV (6), OH (18) WI (10), VA (13) and that is why the expected EV is just 320.7. But keep in mind that the projections are based on LV polls which a) always understate Democratic turnout and b) are at least partially based on previous election bogus recorded votes.

If FL, OH and NC are stolen, Obama will likely lose. Even though he won the True Vote, it was not enough to overcome the FRAUD FACTOR.

To the pundits, the Fraud Factor is zero. They are not paid to project the True Vote. Their projections are based on Likely Voter polls which are always close to the popular recorded vote. The public has always been led to believe that the recorded vote was in fact the True Vote. It never is. The historical uncounted votes which are 70-80% Democratic prove it. And there have been approximately 40-45 million uncounted ballots in the last six presidential elections – according to the U.S. Census. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that finally, after 12 long years, there is a near critical mass of election fraud awareness. The 2000 and the 2004 elections have been proven to be stolen. Of course, the media pundits know this. But they like their jobs too much to defy their editors.

But the word is finally getting out after decades of media silence and misinformation. Yes, it’s a conspiracy, all right – a conspiracy fact, not a theory. The simple fact is that the conspiracy is the media and politicians who have kept the facts about our broken electoral system hidden from the public. What is the proof? The proof is…they never talk about the millions of uncounted votes or the proprietary voting machines owned and serviced by right-wing organizations – who just so happen to also count the votes..

Unlike the other election forecasters in the media and academia, the 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Forecast model projects both the True Vote and the official Recorded vote.

- The Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation is based on the latest state likely voter (LV) polls.
- The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.

The LV polls are based partially on a Likely Voter Cutoff Model which always reduces projected (Democratic) turnout. Another factor to keep inmind is that the polls are at least somewhat based on prior election recorded votes – which are themselves tainted.

Even so, Obama has a 99% probability of winning the Electoral Vote (EV). Models which indicate an 80% win probability based on the latest polls cannot be correct – probably because they include extraneous factor variables. An experienced modeler knows how to KISS (keep it simple stupid).

Only 500 election simulation trials are necessary to determine the EV win probability. Anything more than that is overkill. Calculating the expected EV does not require a million scenario combinations, either.

Assuming the polls, the state win probabilities p(i) can be calculated. The expected EV is just a simple summation based on the expected state electoral votes: Expected EV = ∑p(i)* EV(i), where i =1,51 states.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

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

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

Posted by on November 5, 2012 in 2012 Election

## Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

This 2008 analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states that voted early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots. Approximately 30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states where, presumably, election fraud is minimal.

In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift) are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would intuitively expect.

The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average 2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average 6.8% red-shift.

For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-delivered paper ballots early/hand-delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%).

This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift decreases. Note that the three points at the extreme right represent CO, WA, OR.

Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7% of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.). The remaining 63% that were recorded on Election Day were a combination of DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since 30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on unverifiable DREs, then about 50% of Election Day voting was on DREs. And that explains why exit poll discrepancies were highest in states that only had Election Day voting.

Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper ballot) votes? How did the Democratic Late Vote share compare to the overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since late votes were cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee, etc.), the Democrats did much better.

Proof: there were 121 million votes recorded before or on Election Day. Obama had 52.4%. But he had 59.2% of 10 million late recorded votes.

Here is the takeaway: If you have the option, vote early using paper ballots. Don’t wait until Election Day to vote in cyberspace. And lobby election officials to mandate that, at minimum, the paper ballots are hand counted in randomly selected precincts or counties.

Election activists who are opposed to voting early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots should check out Oregon, Washington and Colorado. Oregon installed its vote-by-mail system in 1998. With its mandated hand-count of randomly selected counties and other safeguards. Since 2000, Oregon has by far the best record of all the battleground states based on various statistical measures of accuracy. Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates had the lowest exit poll discrepancies?

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

Posted by on February 4, 2012 in 2008 Election

## How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote

How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote

Richard Charnin

Jan. 6, 2011

This is a quick summary of the changes that were made to the unadjusted, pristine exit polls in order to force them to match the recorded vote.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National exit polls vs. recorded votes and National True Vote Model

2004
Table 1A is the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
Table 3A is the adjusted Final NEP Gender crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Kerry 47.8%).

Table 4A is the unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2000′ crosstab (3182 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
Table 5A is the adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2000′ crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Kerry 48.3%).

Table 6A is the True Vote Model. Kerry had 53.3%.
Kerry had 51.1% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76192 respondents).

Based on the 3182 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2000:
1- The unadjusted 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 47.8%, Bush 48.4%, Other 3.8%.
2- The Final 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 44.6%, Bush 51.8%, Other 3.6%.

But Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 and had 50.8% in the unadjusted exit poll. Therefore, it is likely that the unadjusted 2004 exit poll understated Kerry’s True Vote share by nearly 2%.

2008
Table 7A is the adjusted Final NEP Gender crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Obama 52.7%).

Table 4 is the unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2004′ crosstab (4178 respondents). Obama had 58.0%.
Table 12 is the adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2004′ crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Obama 52.9%).

Table 2 is the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82388 respondents). Obama had 58.1%.

Table 7 is the True Vote Model. Obama had 58.0%.

Based on the 4178 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2004:
1- The unadjusted 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 50.2%, Bush 44.6%, Other 5.2%.
This is close to the unadjusted 2004 NEP (Kerry 51.7%), but the 3rd party (Other) recorded share was 1.0%, a 4.2% discrepancy from the implied share.

2- The Final 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 42.3%, Bush 52.6%, Other 4.6%.
This is far from both the unadjusted and Final 2004 NEP (Kerry 48.3%). The discrepancy is due to the Final 2008 NEP forced match to the recorded vote.

National Exit Poll Timeline
This refutes the myth that early exit polls were biased to Kerry. He led from 4pm with 51% (8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%). The exit pollsters had to switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match to the recorded vote. Given his 51.7% share of 125.7 million votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes. But the True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.

11/3/04 1:24pm, Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
Adjusted Sample: Kerry 48% (6,557); Bush 51% (6,966)
Forced to match recorded vote by switching approximately 507 (7.2%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush.
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
Sample Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%
http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/cf/action/catalog/abstract.cfm?label=&keyword=USMI2004-NATELEC&fromDate=&toDate=&organization=Any&type=&keywordOptions=1&start=1&id=&exclude=&excludeOptions=1&topic=Any&sortBy=DESC&archno=USMI2004-NATELEC&abstract=abstract&x=32&y=9

11/2/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

11/2/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

11/2/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

2004
Final Exit Polls
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008
Final Exit Polls
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

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 Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

Posted by on January 7, 2012 in 2004 Election, 2008 Election

## The Oregon Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works

The Oregon Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2012

This statistical analysis of Oregon’s voting history provides evidence that the vote-by-mail system introduced in 1998 has been a success.
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

In 1988 Bush was the de-facto incumbent as Vice President. Dukakis led by 55.0-42.9% in the Oregon exit poll and won the recorded vote by 51.3-46.6%. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.0-49.0%. But Bush won the national recorded vote by 53.4-45.6%.

In 1992 Bush was the incumbent. Clinton led Bush by 49.3-25.7% in the Oregon exit poll but won the state recorded vote by just 42.5-32.5%. He led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 45.7-34.8% and the national recorded vote by 43.0-37.4%.

In 1996, Clinton was the incumbent. He led Dole by 48.4-37.9% in the Oregon exit poll and won the state by nearly the same margin: 47.2-39.1%. He led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.2-39.8% and the national recorded vote by nearly the same margin: 49.2-40.7%. His 54.7% two-party Oregon share exactly matched the National recorded share.

In 2000, Gore won Oregon by 47.0-46.5% and led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.8-44.5%. He won nationally by nearly the same margin (48.4-47.9%) and had a 48.3% Battleground share. The National True Vote Model indicates that he won by 50-47%. Nader had 6% in Oregon and 3% nationwide. Allocating the excess 3% Nader vote, Gore would have won Oregon by approximately 50-47.5%. He had 50.8% in the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate.

The close match between the Gore’s recorded vote, pre-election polls, exit polls and True Vote Model indicates that Oregon was representative of the True National Vote.

In 2004, Bush was the incumbent. Kerry led the state pre-election polls by 48-47% and was projected to win by 51-48%. He led the Oregon pre-election poll by 50-44% and was projected to win by 53.7-45.3%. He won Oregon by 51.3-47.2%, a 3.6% improvement in margin over Gore. Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.1-47.0% but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. Kerry had a 53.6% national share in the True Vote Model – a 10 million vote margin. The model assumptions were 98% turnout of living returning Gore and Bush voters and 12:22am National Exit Poll with 8% of Gore voters defecting to Bush and 10% of Bush voters to Kerry.

Bush improved on his 2000 recorded vote share not only in the battleground states as well as in solidly Democratic New York. But Oregon went against the grain and shifted from Gore to Kerry. Kerry’s Oregon margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s. This was primarily due to Kerry’s 65-13% lead in returning Nader voters and 57-41% edge in new voters. Kerry’s Oregon share was close to his 52% pre-election poll as well as the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.1-47.6%).

Once again, the close match between Kerry’s recorded share (51.3%) and the aggregate of the state exit polls (51.1%) indicated that Oregon represented the True National Vote.

Therefore, we must conclude that the election was stolen in the Battleground states and that Oregon’s vote-by-mail system was virtually fraud-proof.

In 2008, McCain was the de-facto incumbent. Obama led 56-39% in the Oregon pre-election poll and won the state by 56.7-40.4%. He had 58.4% in the post-election survey. The True Vote model indicated 56.0-42.8%. Obama won the national recorded vote by just 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin, but he had 58.0% in the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls and 58% in the True Vote model. The triple match is powerful confirming evidence that the vote-by-mail system worked. Obama won the unadjusted National Exit poll (17836 respondents) by a whopping 61-37%.
We can conclude that Oregon’s votes were counted accurately – unlike the other states.

Again, the close match between Obama’s 2008 recorded vote (56.7%), unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (58.0%) and the National True Vote Model (58.0%) indicates that Oregon was representative of the national electorate.

In the 2010 Midterms, Ron Wyden (OR Dem Senate) won re-election with 57%, exactly matching the pre-election polls and Obama’s OR share. But popular progressive Democrats in other states such as WI, IL and PA were all defeated; their recorded vote shares were far below that of Obama, who won each state in a landslide. How come Wyden won handily but other progressives lost in WI, PA, IL? Did it have something to do with Oregon’s unique early voting system (mail and in-person) and it’s mandated hand recounts?

To believe that Oregon’s mail-in/early voting system miscounted votes, one must also believe that Bush did legitimately win all the other battleground states and therefore that the national and state exit polls that showed Kerry winning were all wrong. But what if the exit polls were correct? What if the votes were miscounted? Then one would have to conclude that Oregon’s system worked. The states used electronic voting machines, punched cards and levers.

True Vote Methodology

The analysis tables provide a reasonable approximation of the National, Oregon and Battleground True Vote shares.
Given 2000 and 2004 votes recorded and cast, the True Vote calculation assumes:
1. Kerry and Gore had 75% of the uncounted (cast – recorded) votes
2. Annual 1.25% voter mortality (5% in the four years between elections)
3. Equal 98% turnout of returning 2000 voters in 2004.
4. Equal Gore and Bush returning voter defection rates (they cancel each other).
5. Kerry won returning Nader voters by 65-13% over Bush based on the National Exit Poll.
6. New 2004 voters is the difference between 2004 votes cast and returning 2000 voters.
7. Kerry won new voters by 59-39% nationally. His DNV share in each state is calculated as:

State DNV share = 0.59* (1+state exit poll share – 0.5197)*new voters, where .5197 is Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (national) share. For instance, in NY, Kerry’s share of 1347k DNV is 894k = 0.59*(1+.645-0.5197).

The simplifying assumption is that there was zero net defection of returning Gore and Bush voters (they cancelled each other). But the 12:22am National Exit Poll of 13,047 respondents indicates that 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry and only 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. The 2004 True Vote analysis shown below indicates that Kerry had a 53.7% national share assuming a net 2% defection as opposed to 53.3% assuming zero net defection. See the Recursive True Vote Model.

Kerry True Vote Sensitivity Analysis
Two groups of three tables display the effect of various model input assumptions on Kerry’s vote share. The margin of error is less than 1.5%.

-New Voters and returning Nader/other voters
Three tables display Kerry’s National, Oregon and Battleground True Vote shares over a 54-63% range of new voters and 61-69% of returning Nader/other voters. Kerry wins all worst case scenarios (54% of new voters and 61% of returning Nader voters).

-Returning Gore and Bush Voter Turnout
Three tables display Kerry’s National, Oregon and Battleground vote shares for 91-99% turnout of living former Gore and Bush voters. Kerry wins all worst case turnout scenarios (91% of living Gore voters and 99% of living Bush voters).

Oregon vs. New York and California

National
In 2000, Gore won the recorded vote by 48.4-47.9%. In 2004, although returning Nader voters broke heavily for Kerry by 65-13% and new voters by 59-39%, Bush won by 50.7-48.3%. That is not plausible.

Oregon
Gore won by 47.0-46.5%. With returning Nader and new voters breaking for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin increased to 51.4-47.2%. That is plausible. Kerry led by 52.2-46.3% in the exit pollster telephone poll. That is plausible.

New York
Gore won by 60.2-35.2%. Although returning Nader and new voters broke heavily for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin declined to 58.4-40.1%. That is not plausible. Kerry led by 64.5-34.0% in the exit poll. That is plausible.

California
Gore won by 53.4-41.6%. Although returning Nader and new voters broke heavily for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin declined to 54.3-44.1%. That is not plausible. Kerry led by 60.1-38.6% in the exit poll. That is plausible.

Why did Kerry’s margin increase in Oregon, a battleground state, and decline in strongly Democratic California and New York?

Why was the exit poll so far off in California (11.6 WPE)? It voted 29% on DRE touch screens, 66% on optical scanners and 4% on punch cards.

Why was the exit poll so far off in New York (12.2 WPE)? It voted exclusively on lever machines.

Why were the exit polls so far off (7.5 WPE) in the Battleground states? They voted on punched cards, levers, optical scanners and DREs.

Florida and Ohio

In Florida 2000, there were approximately 185,000 spoiled punch cards (under-punched and over-punched). According to the Census, 43,000 more votes were cast than recorded. Where did the 142,000 extra votes come from? Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

In Florida 2004, according to the Census, approximately 238,000 more votes were recorded than cast. How many were uncounted? Bush won by 380,000 votes.

In Ohio 2004, according to the Census, 143,000 more votes were recorded than cast. Approximately 300,000 were uncounted (see Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by RFK, Jr.) How many votes were switched? Bush won by 119,000 votes.

Oregon’s Pre-Election Polls Uniquely Matched the Recorded and True Vote

Final state pre-election polls were virtually all Likely Voter (LV) subsets of the full Registered Voter (RV) samples. Likely Voter subsets largely exclude “new” voters: first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election. The Democrats won ‘new voters’ by an average 14% margin before Obama’s whopping 44%. Projections that ignore RV polls and focus solely on LV polls will inevitably underestimate the Democratic share, especially in heavy-turnout elections such as 2004 and 2008. In 2004, final pre-election projections were based on LV polls which understated voter turnout by 6%. Virtually all online political sites displayed LV polls (not RVs) and failed to allocate undecided voters.

Mainstream pollsters allocated 65-90% of undecided voters to Kerry. His projected national LV poll share was 1-2% lower than the projected RV share. In New York and California, pre-election poll projections were a virtual match to the recorded vote-count share. But they were 5-6% below Kerry’s exit polls and True Vote shares. The same LV/RV mismatch occurred in 2008. Obama had a 53% projection based on LV polls but had 57% based on RV national polls after allocating undecided voters.

Voting by mail results in high turnout, so the pre-election polls are RVs by definition. Kerry led by 50-44% in the final poll. After the undecided voter allocation (UVA), he was projected to win by 53-45%, matching the True Vote Model and within 1.6% of his recorded share. In the final weeks prior to the 2004 and 2008 elections, national LV polls were displayed on political websites; many did not allocate undecided voters.

By virtue of its vote by mail system, Oregon’s pre-election RV polls undermine the media’s objective of fooling voters into believing bogus vote counts. The media primes voters before the election with LV-only projections and then covers up the fraud with final exit polls that they always force to match the vote miscounts.

1988 – 2008: Patterns of Discrepancies Before and After Voting-By-Mail

Before Mail-In Ballots

1988 – Bush was Vice President. Dukakis had 51.3% in Oregon and 45.7% National.
He did 3.2% better in the OR exit poll.
1992 – Bush was President. Clinton had 42.5% in Oregon and 43.0% National.
He did 5.1% better in the OR exit poll.
1996 – Clinton was President. He had 47.2% in Oregon and 49.2% National.
He did 2.2% better in the OR exit poll.

After Mail-In Ballots

2000 – Clinton was President. Gore had 47.0% in Oregon and 48.4% National.
2004 – Bush was President. Kerry had 51.3% in Oregon and 48.3% National.
2008 – Bush was President. Obama had 58.4% in Oregon and 52.9% National.

Is it just a coincidence that when Clinton was the incumbent, there was just a 1.7% deviation between the Oregon and National vote shares?
Is it just a coincidence that when Bush was the incumbent, there was a 3.5% deviation between the Oregon and National vote shares?
If the True Vote Model is correct and Oregon reflects the national electorate, then what does that tell us about the electoral system?

Oregon County Vote Change Correlation

Since Oregon switched to mail-in ballots in 1998, there has been a noticeable decline in the volatility of changes in county vote shares from election to election. Before the switch to mail, there was a 0.93 correlation between 1996 and 2000 county vote share and a 5.0% standard deviation. After the switch, there was a near-perfect 0.98 correlation between 2000 and 2004 county vote shares and a lower 2.2% standard deviation in percentage vote change. There was an even better 0.99 correlation for 2004 and 2008. along with a very low 1.5% standard deviation in percentage vote change. The system is getting better and better.

The statistical analysis makes intuitive sense. Since the battleground states closely mirror the national electorate as by definition, Oregon’s recorded vote share should have been close to the other battleground states. But it was the only state that deviated sharply to Kerry. Oregon’s voting system is transparent. Optically scanned machine counts are verified by random hand-counts. Washington has also recently implemented a mail-in system.

Touch screen voting machine precincts avoid paper ballots; votes can be switched locally or at the invisible central tabulators. Optical scanners are a step in the right direction, but the system is ripe for fraud without a system similar to Oregon’s mandated random hand-count of selected precincts. Punch card machines can be rigged to void votes by double and triple-punching the ballots after the polls close – as occurred in Florida 2000. Corrupt election officials are quick to blame “stupid” voters for not properly filling out h the ballots.

Lever machines in NY, CT and PA did not use paper ballots; too few machines are placed in heavily Democratic precincts; defective machines that break down cause voters to leave the precinct; levers were “stuck” for Bush in 2004; lever gears can be shaved. Most important, tabulation of the votes is done on computers.

In NY, Gore, Kerry and Obama each enjoyed a 7% higher late (paper ballot) vote share than they did on Election Day levers. What does that tell us?

Here is an amazing statistic that very few are even aware of: Obama had 52% of the 121 million votes recorded on Election Day but he had a whopping 59% of the 10 million (paper ballot) votes recorded after Election Day. What are the odds of the 14% discrepancy? It’s like a 10 million sample-size exit poll.

Kerry won new voters by 59-39% and returning Nader voters by 65-13%. In order to believe the recorded vote, you must also believe that returning Gore voters defected to Bush at a much higher rate than Bush voters to Kerry. But according to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, 10% of Bush and 8% of Gore voters defected.

The above analysis indicates that Oregon’s mail-in system works just fine. It would be greatly appreciated if interested readers can find flaws in the assumptions, logic or the math and present contrary statistical and/or anecdotal evidence. The analysis should be forwarded to Oregon’s election officials who may then decide to scrap vote by mail and convert to HAVA-compliant DREs, Optical scanners, Punch cards or Lever machines.

Readers who believe that vote-by-mail systems are vulnerable to election fraud and/or voter fraud, should lobby state officials to oppose Oregon’s vote-by-mail system and keep their unverifiable voting systems.

Those opposed to 100% paper ballot voting by mail or hand-delivery cite advantages in precinct voting. These include a) voters meeting friends and making new ones, b) taking time off from work to vote, c) projecting a patriotic image by voting in full view, d) looking smart by touching the computer screen, e) exercising their legs while waiting to vote and f) getting free coffee.

If you believe the recorded 2004 vote was accurate in the battleground states, then you must also believe that…
1- Bush won a fair election.
2- The electronic and mechanical voting machines accurately counted the votes.
3- There was little or no fraud.
4- Election reform efforts are meaningless.
5- There is nothing wrong with our national voting system.
6- Oregon’s voting system was rigged for Kerry since it was the only battleground state he won that shifted sharply to him from Gore.
7- Pre-election state and national polls that projected Kerry would win by 51-48% after undecided voters were allocated were wrong.
8- Unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls that had Kerry winning by 5-7% were wrong.
9- The Oregon telephone survey that showed Kerry winning a 52.3% share was wrong.
10- Either returning Nader voters defected to Bush and/or he won a majority of new voters and/or more returning Gore voters than Bush voters defected.
11 -The National Exit Poll which had Kerry winning returning Nader voters by 65-13% and new voters by 59-39% were wrong.
12- The Oregon vote must have been padded for Kerry (51.4%) and Obama (56.7%).
13- Election officials in Florida, Ohio, NY and other states did a great job in making sure that the voting machines were not tampered with.
14- A problem with vote by mail is the elimination of exit polls. Oregon needs exit polls even though they are usually wrong.
15- The True Vote Model is flawed since it closely matched the unadjusted National, Oregon and Battleground exit polls.
16- There is nothing wrong with the standard policy of forcing final state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote.
17- Final 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were correct: there were millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive.

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 Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

Posted by on January 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

## My 2003 Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

Dear President Carter:

This is a plea: you may be our democracy’s last hope..

As one of the most trusted and respected Americans, you have monitored elections in other countries. America now needs your help in what many are afraid is an impending election disaster – a fraud of unimaginable proportions.

Computer touch-screen voting machines are about to be installed throughout the nation. They have been determined by Johns Hopkins computer scientists and many others to have built-in software and hardware security flaws which can be exploited in many different ways to defraud voters and change the results of an election.

These machines were used in 2002 Senate elections. Over 22,000 Diebold machines were installed in Georgia. The results of the elections raised eyebrows. The deviations from final polling results were astounding and defied historical precedent. The popular pollster Zogby claimed he had never seen last minute tunarounds like those which occurred in a number of hotly contested Senate and Governor races. And all the turnarounds favored the Republicans. The odds of this happening in a fair election are staggeringly low.

We need your voice to fight for our most important freedom: the right to have our votes counted fairly, with maximum built-in security checks to prevent fraud. Until now, all voting machine software code has been proprietary; there are no redundancy audit checks and paper trails. The potential for fraud cannot be overstated. The 2004 elections will be the most important of our lifetime. This is the first time in history that a large segment of the population is expecting that the Presidential election will be stolen. Chaos will reign if nothing is done. We were in quiet shock in Dec. 2000 when the Supreme Court installed Bush. We will no longer remain quiet.

President Carter, we ask that you provide one final great service to your nation: you must speak out NOW in calling for fraud-proof, audited voting machines. If we cannot have them by the election, then only PAPER BALLOTS will do. The time is growing short; the machines are already bought and paid for; thoughts of greed, not democracy, promotes their rapid installation. We ask that you monitor OUR elections this time, but not before we have FULL confidence that these machines will not be programmed to manipulate votes.

As a nuclear engineer/physicist and humanitarian, no one is more qualified or respected than you are to provide the moral leadership required in getting this issue before the American public at this critical time. Your voice is too powerful to be muffled; you must realize the extent of our fears and the power of your bully pulpit.

President Carter, your voice MUST be heard. This nation will rupture if there is widespread disbelief in the fairness of the election results. We shall never forget the 2000 Presidential election fiasco.

Al Gore should be in the White House today; that is beyond question. We were fooled once; we must not be fooled again.

Yours truly,
An American voter

Posted by on January 1, 2012 in Uncategorized

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

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

Richard Charnin

Updated: May 11, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

The data source is the Roper site

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ultimate Smoking Gun

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

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

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

The 1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

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

Pre-election Polls

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

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

What the Pundits Don’t Talk About

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Overview

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

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

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

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

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

To Believe Bush Won Fairly You Must Believe…

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

2004 Election Model Graphs

National Polling Trend

Electoral vote and win probability

Electoral and popular vote

Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability

National Poll Trend

Monte Carlo Simulation

Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram

Posted by on November 22, 2011 in Media

## 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 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.

Manjoo’s 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: “2000-2006 Election Fraud Analytics”.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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
________________________________________________________________________________