RSS

Tag Archives: 1988-2008

Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis

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

Look inside the book:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

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

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

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

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

Key results

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

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

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

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

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

The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:

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

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

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

The Binomial distribution calculates the probability P that a given number of events (successes) would occur in n trials given that each trial has a constant probability p of success. For instance, the probability of flipping heads (a success) is 50%.

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

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

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

Impossible 2004 National Exit Poll

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

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

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


UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS)
13660.. Kerry Bush Other
Sample. 7,064 6,414 182
Share.. 51.7% 47.0% 1.33

UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote)
2000........ Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
New/DNV..... 22,427 17.84% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore (48.4%) 49,984 39.75% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0%
Bush (47.9%) 49,451 39.33% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other (3.75%) 3,874 3.08% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

True Vote 100% 52.2% 46.4% 1.3%
Recorded 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%

2004 TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 True Vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.... 22.4 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore... 52.0 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush... 47.4 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other... 3.9 3.10% 64% 17% 19%

Share. 125.7 100% 53.6% 45.1% 1.3%
Votes. 125.7 100% 67.36 56.67 1.71

ADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (final adjusted vote shares)
(impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout
DNV.... 20.8 17.0% 54% 44% 2% - -
Gore... 45.2 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48.4 93%
Bush... 52.6 43.0% 09% 91% 0% 47.9 110% (impossible turnout)
Other....3.7 03.0% 64% 14% 22% 3.80 97%

Share.. 122.3 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%
Votes.. 122.3 100% 59.0 62.0 1.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MoE was exceeded in 135 of 274 exit polls assuming a 30% “cluster factor” (the base case). Although 30% is the most common estimate, political scientists and statisticians may differ on the appropriate cluster factor to be used in a given exit poll. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis worksheet of various cluster factor assumptions (ranging from 0% to 200%) is displayed in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Poll Spreadsheet Reference.

The table displays the number of exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded over a range of cluster factors. Even with extremely conservative cluster factor assumptions, the sensitivity analysis indicates a ZERO probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in the six elections. Were the massive discrepancies due to inferior polling by the most experienced mainstream media exit pollsters in the world? Or are they further mathematical confirmation of systemic election fraud – beyond any doubt?

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

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

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

Media pollsters, pundits and academics need to do a comparable scientific analysis of historical exit polls and create feasible and plausible True Vote models. Independent journalists need to consider that the devil is in the details of systemic election fraud. They can start by trying to reviewing the analysis presented here. It’s been two years and no one has even tried to debunk it.

Presidential Summary

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

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

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

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

Year RS >MoE Probability.... Exit Vote Diff
1988* 21.. 12... 2.5E-12..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may have won
1992 45.. 27... 1.1E-26..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton landslide
1996 44.. 19... 2.5E-15..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton landslide
2000 34.. 17... 4.9E-13..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore win stolen
2004 42.. 23... 3.5E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry landslide stolen
2008 46.. 37... 2.4E-39..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama landslide denied

Total 232 135.. 3.7E-116.... 51.7 47.9 3.8
* 274 exit polls (24 in 1988, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

Election Model Forecast/ Post-election True Vote Model
Track Record:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/pub

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 Midterms Overview
True Vote Model Analysis

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

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

 
25 Comments

Posted by on June 25, 2012 in True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

1988-2016 Recorded Votes vs. Exit Polls vs. True Vote Models

Richard Charnin
Nov. 13, 2011
Updated: Nov. 29, 2016

The 1988-2016 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database contains a wide selection of tables and graphs for presidential election analysis. The data source is the Roper website.

Adjusted “final” exit polls do not reflect actual exit poll response and just parrot the recorded (fraudulent) vote. The fraud factor is assumed to be zero in all official final polls. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

Unadjusted exit poll data shares have closely matched the corresponding True Vote Model. The TVM calculates feasible estimates of returning and new voters. State and national exit poll demographic cross tabs in the mainstream media are always forced to match the recorded vote by “adjusting” category weightings and/or vote shares.

The Democrats led the 1988-2008 vote shares measured by…
1) Recorded Vote: 48.08-45.96%
2) Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate:51.88-41.71% (370,000 respondents)
3) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.86-41.65 (85,000 respondents)
4) True Vote Model (methods 2-3): 51.6-42.9%
5) True Vote Model (method 4): 53.2-41.0%
6) State Exit Polls (WPE/IMS) method: 51.0-43.0%

The Democrats won the exit poll and lost the recorded vote in the following states:
1988: CA IL MD MI NM PA VT (Dukakis won the unadjusted Nat Exit Poll 50-49%)
1992: AK AL AZ FL IN MS NC OK TX VA
1996: AK AL CO GA ID IN MS MT NC ND SC SD VA
2000: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA (Gore needed just ONE state to win)
2004: CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA (Kerry would have won if he carried FL or OH)
2008: AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE

In 2000, Gore won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. But he won the recorded vote by just 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). There were six million uncounted votes, the vast majority (75-80%) for Gore. Uncounted ballots accounted for 3-4 million of the 5.5 million vote discrepancy. Vote switching and ballot stuffing may account for the remaining 1-2 million.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) indicated that Kerry won by 51.7-47.0%. Exit pollsters Edison/Mitofsky suggested the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis to explain the difference: there must have been 56 Kerry responders for every 50 Bush responders. There was no evidence to back it up.

Mitofsky used the same argument to explain the large 1992 exit poll discrepancies. Clinton had 43.0% recorded, a six million vote margin. But he had 47.6% in the unadjusted exit poll- a 16 million landslide. Mitofsky never mentioned the 1992 Vote Census which showed that there were 10 million more votes cast than recorded. Uncounted ballots accounted for half the 10 million discrepancy in margin.

Forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

The pollsters applied their unsupported hypothesis by forcing the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote. They indicated that 43% of 122.3 (52.6 million) of the 2004 electorate were returning Bush 2000 voters and 37% returning Gore voters. But 52.6 million was an impossible statistic; it implied a 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died prior to the 2004 election and one million did not return to vote. Therefore, no more than 47 million Bush 2000 voters (38.4% of the 122.3 million) could have returned. There had to be 5.6 million PHANTOM BUSH VOTERS.

In fact, Kerry led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. Therefore, since the National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible number of returning Bush voters, the recorded vote must have been impossible. Simple mathematics proves election fraud.

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicated that Kerry had 53.6%. Why the difference between the TVM and the unadjusted state and national exit polls? The exit pollsters apparently designed their 2004 sample based on the bogus 2000 recorded vote which indicated that Gore won by just 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). On the other hand, the TVM uses a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election. Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.5%; he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%.

In 2008 Obama led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61.0-37.2%. As usual, the NEP was forced to match the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%).

Why the discrepancy? The National Exit Poll was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by indicating that returning Bush and Kerry voters comprised 46% and 37%, respectively, of the electorate. The pollsters implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 6 million votes and the True Vote Model by 10 million.

The following examples illustrate how the exit pollsters rigged the Final 2004 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs to force them to match the recorded vote.

Bush Approval
The pollsters had to inflate Bush’s pre-election approval rating by a full 5% in order to force a match to the recorded vote – and perpetuate the fraud. Bush had 50.3% approval in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate, but just 48% approval in 11 final pre-election polls. Therefore, the unadjusted exit polls understated Kerry’s True Vote by 2%. In order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to increase Bush approval to 53%, a full 5% over the 48% average of 11 pre-election polls. If Bush’s true approval was 48%, that means Kerry had 53.6% – matching the True Vote Model.

Party-ID
In order to force a match the recorded vote, the pollsters had to “adjust” the state exit poll Dem/Rep Party-ID split from 38.8/35.1% to 37/37% in the Final National Exit Poll.

There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation between Bush’s unadjusted state exit poll shares and approval ratings and a 0.93 correlation between his shares and Republican Party-ID.

This chart displays Bush’s unadjusted state exit polls, approval ratings and Republican Party-ID.

The True Vote Model (TVM) is based on Census votes cast, mortality, prior election voter turnout and National Exit Poll vote shares. The TVM closely matched the exit polls in each election. In 2008, it was within 0.1% of Obama’s 58.0% unadjusted exit poll share.

These tables display the trend in unadjusted state and national exit polls, True Vote and recorded vote shares.

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
The discrepancies between the official recorded vote and unadjusted exit polls are in one direction only. This cannot be coincidental. The True Vote Model is confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – and vice versa.

There was a massive 8% discrepancy between the exit polls (52D-42R) and the recorded vote (48D-46R). The Probability P of the discrepancy is less than:
P = 8E-10 = 1- Normdist (.52,.48,.012/1.96, true)
P = 1 in 1.2 billion

Example: 274 state presidential exit polls (1988-2008)
A total of 232 polls shifted from the poll to the vote in favor of the Republican. Only 42 shifted to the Democrat. Normally, as in coin-flipping, there should have been a near equal shift. The Binomial distribution calculates the probability that 232 of 274 would red-shift to the GOP: 9.11E-35 (less than 1 in a trillion trillion). E-35 is scientific notation for 35 places to the right of the decimal point. For instance, E-3= .001 or 1/1000.

The Poisson_distribution function is used for calculating the probability in which each event has a very low probability of occurrence. The Margin of Error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state exit polls. Only 14 would normally be expected. Of the 135, 131 moved in favor of the Republicans, 4 to the Democrat. The probability P that 131 of 274 would red-shift beyond the margin of error is P = E-116 = Poisson (131, .025*274, false).
P = .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001

The 274 exit polls comprise the Ultimate Smoking Gun which proves Systemic Election Fraud.

The following table summarizes
a) the number of state elections in which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote,
b) the number (n) of states in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican,
c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE to the Republican,
d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share,
e) the Democratic recorded share,
f) the differential between the exit poll and recorded vote share.

Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff
1988 21.. 12... E-12..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may very well have won a close election.
1992 45.. 27... E-26..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton won in a landslide, much bigger than recorded.
1996 44.. 19... E-15..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton won in a landslide, much bigger than recorded.
2000 34.. 17... E-13..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore won by 5-7 million True votes.
2004 42.. 23... E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry won a 10 million True vote landslide.
2008 46.. 37... E-39..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama won a 23 million True vote landslide.

(%)……….        Nat Exit…….  State Exit……..Recorded……  Red shift
Year..Votes… Dem.. Rep…… Dem… Rep… Dem… Rep… GOP >MoE
Total………… 51.58 41.76…. 51.72 41.71.. 48.34 46.16….232 135 131

1988 91,595. 49.81  49.15.. 50.30 48.70.. 45.64 53.46…… 21 12 12
1992 104,424 46.31 33.47.. 47.59 31.74.. 43.01 37.46…… 45 27 27
1996  96,275  52.20 37.50.. 52.64 37.06.. 49.18 40.82…… 44 19 18
2000 105,417 48.51 46.27.. 50.75 44.76.. 48.38 47.87…… 34 17 16
2004 122,294 51.71 46.95.. 50.97 47.71.. 48.28 50.72…… 42 23 22
2008 132,310 60.96 37.23.. 58.06 40.29.. 52.87 45.60…… 46 37 36

 

Tags: , , ,

Unadjusted 2008 State Exit Polls: Further Confirmation of the True Vote Model

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Sept. 20, 2011

It is instructive to see how the unadjusted 2008 exit polls polls compare to the recorded vote and the True Vote Model (TVM). The basic results are not surprising: Obama did better in the aggregate state exit polls (58.1%) than the vote count (52.9%). But the Democrats always do better in the polls. What is surprising is that he did 5.2% better – exactly matching the TVM. By way of comparison, Kerry did 3.7% better in the unadjusted exit polls (52%) than in the recorded vote (48.3%). He had 53.6% in the TVM.

A Triple Confirmation

In the 2008 National Exit Poll (NEP), 4178 of the 17836 responders were asked how they voted in 2004: 1815 (43.4%) said they were Kerry voters, 1614 (38.6%) Bush, 188 (4.5%) third-party and 561 (13.4%) did not vote. Applying Final 2008 NEP vote shares to the returning voter mix, Obama had a 58.1% share – exactly matching a) his 58.1% share of the aggregate unadjusted state exit polls and b) his 58.1% TVM share! The returning voter mix implied that Kerry won by 50.2-44.6%.

But all exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote. The pollsters needed an impossible 46/37% Bush/Kerry mix which implied that Bush won by 52.6-42.3%. His (bogus) recorded margin was 50.7-48.3%. Kerry won the True Vote with 53.6% (Table 6). In the Final 2008 NEP, pollsters effectively converted 269 of 1815 (15%) Kerry responders to Bush responders in order to force a match to the recorded vote.

To summarize, the unadjusted 2008 NEP exactly matched the weighted aggregate share of the unadjusted state exit polls, based on how the the exit poll responders said they voted in 2004 and 2008. It also matched the TVM which used 2004 votes cast, voter mortality, a best estimate of living 2004 voter turnout in 2008 – and the Final 2008 NEP vote shares. Obama had 58.1% in each calculation – a triple confirmation that Obama won a 23 million vote landslide, far exceeding his 9.5 million recorded vote margin.

But that’s not all. The National Exit Poll of 17836 respondents is a subset of the 80,000 sampled in the state exit polls. Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37%, a landslide of historic proportions. However, the state exit polls have a smaller margin of error and are probably a better estimate of the True Vote.

This graph shows that Obama’s 58% True Vote share is confirmed by three independent statistical measures: 1) Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 2) Unadjusted state exit polls, 3) and 10 million late (paper ballot) votes.

The key result is the state exit poll aggregate vote share. The national sample size was approximately 80,000. The average state exit poll margin of error was 3.35% (including a 30% “cluster” effect). The margin of error was exceeded in 37 states; in 2004 it was exceeded in 29. Of the 50 states and DC, 45 shifted to McCain from the exit poll. The difference in margin between the exit poll and the recorded vote is the average Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPD). The WPD was 10.6 in 2008, far above the 7.4 in 2004.

The True Vote Model has closely matched the unadjusted state and national exit polls in every presidential election since 1988. In the 11 presidential elections from 1968 to 2008, the Republicans had a 49-45% recorded vote margin while the Democrats had a 49-45% True Vote margin.

In a given state, the exit poll varies from the corresponding True Vote calculation. But the total aggregate share is an exact match, illustrating the Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem.

The National True Vote Model is based on previous election votes cast and turnout of previous election voters, current votes cast and National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares. The State Model works the same way. It’s based on returning state voters with NEP vote shares adjusted according to the state/national vote share ratio.

It should be obvious by now that final weighting adjustments made to the exit polls are made to match the recorded vote. In 2004, in addition to the impossible return voter mix, the 12:22am preliminary national exit poll vote shares had to be adjusted in the Final NEP. The required turnout of living Bush voters was 110%. Kerry had a 52.0% aggregate share and a 53.6% TVM share. Of course, all demographic categories had to be adjusted to match the vote count: Final NEP “Party-ID”, “When Decided” and “Bush Approval” crosstab weights did not match the corresponding pre-election polls and were adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2011 in 2008 Election

 

Tags: , , ,

Footprints of Systemic Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Updated: Sept.9, 2012

This is an updated analysis of state and national exit poll discrepancies in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The unadjusted data has made available on the Roper Center for Public Opinion (UConn) website. Now we know what the respondents actually said as to how they voted. It is fundamental information that was not previously available. But it is not the raw precinct level data that analysts would love to see and which the corporate media (the National Election Pool) will not release.

Nevertheless, the unadjusted state and national exit poll data is the mother-lode for SERIOUS exit poll analysis. The pattern is clear: the Democrats always do better in the polls than in the recorded count. There is no evidence that this one-sided result is due to anything other than vote miscounts.

Each presidential election consists of 50 state exit poll files (and Washington DC) in PDF format. In order to utilize the data for a meaningful analysis, it had to be re-organized and consolidated in a single workbook. The workbook contains individual worksheets for each election, as well as other sheets for relevant graphs and tables.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

It has long been established that Final National Exit Polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, often with impossible returning voter weights. The unadjusted data shows just how the exit pollsters had to adjust the actual responses to force the match. Furthermore, and most important, it confirms True Vote Model calculations in each election. The pattern of massive discrepancies totally confirm that the adjusted Final National Election Poll is fiction and debunks the corresponding myth that elections are fair and that the votes are counted accurately.

The original post was based on 1988-2004 data from the Edison/Mitofsky 2004 Election Evaluation Report.

1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls

According to the unadjusted state and national exit polls and the True Vote Model, the Democrats won the 1988-2008 popular vote by a far bigger margin than the recorded vote indicates.

1988-2008 Average National Presidential Vote Shares
....Measure.........Dem...Rep...Margin....Note
1) Recorded.........47.9-45.9% (2.0%) - Vote count
2) WPE /IMS.........50.8-43.1% (7.7%) - Edison-Mitofsky
3) State Exit.......51.8-41.6% (10.2%) - Roper
4) National Exit....51.7-41.7% (10.0%) - Roper
5) True Vote 1......50.2-43.8% (6.4%) - previous recorded vote
6) True Vote 2......51.6-42.5% (9.1%) - previous votes cast
7) True Vote 3......52.5-41.5% (11.0%) - previous unadjusted exit poll
8) True Vote 4......53.0-41.0% (12.0%) - previous True Vote

1988-2008: 274 STATE EXIT POLLS

PROOF OF SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD BEYOND ANY DOUBT

This table illustrates the one-sided red-shift from the Democrat in the state exit polls to the Republican in the recorded vote. The margin of error includes a 30% cluster effect. The MoE was exceeded in an astounding 126 of 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008. The probability is ZERO. At the 95% confidence level, we would expect 14 polls to exceed the MoE. Of the 126 elections, 123 red-shifted to the GOP and just 3 to the Democrat. The probability is 5.4E-106 – ZERO.

State Exit Poll Margin of Error

......................Total..1988...1992..1996..2000..2004..2008
....................... 3.26% 3.34% 3.42% 3.07% 3.64% 3.11% 2.97%
Exit Polls:
red-shift to GOP........226 20 44 43 34 40 45
exceeding MoE...........126 11 26 16 13 23 37
exceeding MoE (GOP).....123 11 26 16 12 22 36

Probability of..........Average.1988.....1992....1996....2000....2004....2008
126 exceeding MoE.......8.0E-75 6.6E-09 2.1E-15 1.5E-09 7.5E-07 2.1E-15 2.1E-15
123 exceeding MoE (GOP).5.E-106 5.0E-11 2.4E-25 4.8E-13 8.7E-09 3.5E-20 2.4E-39
226 red-shift to GOP....3.7E-31 7.7E-04 1.6E-08 1.0E-07 7.7E-03 1.2E-05 2.1E-09

States in which the Democrats won the exit poll and lost the vote

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

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

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

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

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

2008: AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE 
Obama had 58% in the state exit polls (exact match to the TVM), a 23 million margin (9.5 recorded) and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll.

In 1988, Dukakis won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (11,586 respondents) by 49.8-49.2%. He won the exit polls in the battleground states by 51.6-47.3%. There were 11 million uncounted votes, an indicator that Dukakis may have won since 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. But he lost by 7 million recorded votes (53.4-45.6%).

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. The NEP implied that there was 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%). He had 53.6% in the TVM. His recorded margin was 8 million (49.2-40.8%). 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. But 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 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.

In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.1-40.3%, 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.

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

___________________________________________________________________________

http://richardcharnin.com/StateExitPollDiscrepancies.htm

The full set of 2008 exit polls and 24 of the 1988 state polls are from the Roper website. The analysis is displayed in the following 12 data tables:

1988-2008
1 State Exit Poll Discrepancies

1988
2 True Vote Model vs. Final National Exit Poll
3 Battleground Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote

2004
4 National Exit Poll
5 True Vote Model
6 Sensitivity Analysis
7 State Recorded, Exit Poll, True Vote Shares, 8 State Exit Poll Timeline

2008
9 National Exit Poll
10 True Vote Model
11 Unadjusted State exit polls vs. Recorded Vote and True Vote
12 Unadjusted National Exit Poll vs. Final

Within Precinct Error (WPE) is the difference between the unadjusted exit poll and recorded vote margins. “Error” implies that the exit polls were wrong and the election was fraud-free. But millions of votes are uncounted in every election (nearly 11 million in 1988 and 4 million in 2004). Therefore, it is more accurate to refer to Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPD). A positive WPD indicates that the vote shift favored the GOP; a negative WPD favored the Democrat. In 2004, Kerry won the state exit polls by 52-47% but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%, a WPD of 7.4%.

In the 274 state elections which were exit polled, 226 shifted from the exit poll to the Republican and 48 shifted to the Democrat. The one-sided red-shift to the Republican implies that the exit polls were incorrect or the votes were miscounted. It could not have been due to chance. Exit polls are known to be quite accurate – outside the USA.

Were the discrepancies due to Republican voter reluctance to be polled in each of the six elections? Not likely. Were they due to Democratic voters misstating how they voted to the exit pollsters in each of the six elections? Not likely. Or were they due to the millions of mostly Democratic votes that were uncounted? That is more than likely. It’s a fact. Were they due to votes that were miscounted in favor of the Republican? Quite likely.

– In 15 Democratic states, the average WPD was 6.3. The MoE was exceeded in 41 state elections. All shifted in favor of the Republicans.
– In 15 Battleground states, the average WPD was 5.0. The MoE was exceeded in 37. All shifted in favor of the Republicans
– In 21 Republican states, the average WPD was 3.7. The MoE was exceeded in 35. All but two shifted in favor of the Republicans.

Given a 95% level of confidence, approximately 14 of 274 elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. The probability that the MoE would be exceeded in a state is 5%. But the MoE was exceeded in 126 elections, all but threein favor of the Republicans. The probability is ZERO that this was due to chance.

1988
The 1988 CBS exit poll indicate that Dukakis did substantially better than the Edison/Mitofsky report. They show Dukakis winning the 24 battleground state aggregate by a solid 51.6-47.3%. But George H.W. Bush won the recorded vote by 53.4-45.6%. There were 68.7 million recorded votes in the battleground states (75% of the 91.6 million recorded). Seven of the 24 flipped to Bush from the exit polls – a total of 132 electoral votes: CA, MD, PA, MI, IL, VT and NM. The margin of error was exceeded in 11 of the 24 states. Dukakis may very well have won the election. According to the Census, there were at least 10.6 million net uncounted votes (i.e. net of stuffed ballots).

Dukakis won the Roper California exit poll in a landslide (57.7-40.8%), yet Bush won the recorded vote (51.1-47.7%) – an amazing 20.4% discrepancy. He won the IL exit poll by 8% but lost by 2%. In MI, Dukakis had a 3.5% exit poll margin and lost by 8%. In MD, his 12% exit poll win morphed into a 3% defeat. In PA, he won the exit poll by less than 1% and lost by 3%. In Bush’s home state of Texas, he barely edged Dukakis by 1% in the exit poll. He won the state by 13%.

1988 Battleground State Exit Polls
http://richardcharnin.com/1988RoperExit_16115_image001.gif

2004
– In 15 strong Democratic states, the average WPD was 8.9.
The MoE was exceeded in 11 states (73%) – all shifted to Bush.
– In 15 Battleground states, the average WPD was 6.9.
The MoE was exceeded in 10 states (67%) – all shifted to Bush.
– In 21 Republican states, the average WPD was 3.8.
The MoE was exceeded in 7 states (33%) – all shifted to Bush.

The margin of error was exceeded in a total of 23 states – all but one in favor of Bush. The probability is 1 in 19 trillion that the MoE would be exceeded in 16 states. Imagine what the probability is for 28 states. Assuming a 2% MoE, the probability is even lower since the MoE was exceeded in 36 states: 34 in favor of Bush, 2 in favor of Kerry.

The WPDs indicate the GOP election theft strategy:
1) Cut Dem margins in BLUE states: NY, CA, CT, NJ, MD, MA, MI
2) Steal BLUE battleground states: FL, OH, NM, CO, NV, MO, IA
3) Pad the Bush vote in big RED states: TX, MS, AL, TN, SC
4) Ignore small RED states: ND, SD, OK, MT, KY

2008
The exit poll discrepancies (10.6 WPD) were substantially greater than in other elections. The True Vote Model (TVM) exactly matched Obama’s 58% aggregate share of the unadjusted state exit polls – a 23 million vote margin. McCain’s recorded share exceeded his exit poll in 45 states. The exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 37 states, all but one in favor ofr McCain. Obama won by nearly 23 million True votes; he won officially by 9.5 million.

2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls confirm the True Vote Model:
http://richardcharnin.com/2008ExiPollConfirmationTVM.htm

This graph tells you all you need to know about the 2008 election. Obama had a 58% True Vote share – not the official recorded 53%. This is confirmed by at least 4 independent statistical measures: 1) Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 2) Unadjusted state exit polls, 3) True Vote Model and 4)10 million late (paper ballot) votes.

http://richardcharnin.com/2008NEPUnadjustedRoper_28080_image001.gif

 

Tags: , , ,

Monte Carlo Simulation: Election Forecasting and Exit Poll Modeling

Richard Charnin

Updated: July 8, 2012

MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

Monte Carlo simulation is a random process of repeated experimental “trials” applied to a mathematical system model. The Election Simulation Model runs 200 trial “elections” to determine the expected electoral vote and win probability.

Statistical polling (state and national) ideally is an indicator of current voter preference. Pre-election poll shares are adjusted for undecided voters and state win probabilities are calculated. The probabilities are input to a Monte Carlo Simulation based on random numbers. The final probability of winning the electoral vote is simply the number of winning election trials divided by the total number of trials (200 in the ESM; 5000 in the Election Model).

The only forecast assumption is the allocation of undecided/other voters. Historically, 70-80% of undecided voters break for the challenger. If the race is tied at 45-45, a 60-40% split of undecided voters results in a 51-49% projected vote share.

The theoretical expected electoral vote for a candidate is a simple calculation. It is just the sum of the 51 products: state electoral vote times the win probability. In the simulation, the average (mean) electoral vote will converge to the theoretical value as the number of election trials increase.

Sensitivity Analysis

A major advantage of the Monte Carlo method is that the win probability is not sensitive to minor deviations in the state polls. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition as far as allocating the electoral vote is concerned. A projected 51% vote share has less electoral “weight” than a 52% share, etc. Electoral vote projections from media pundits and Internet bloggers use a single snapshot of the latest polls to determine a projected electoral vote split. This can be misleading when the states are competitive and often results in wild electoral vote swings.

In the Election Model, five projection scenarios are executed over a range of undecided voter allocation assumptions display the effects on aggregate vote share, electoral vote and win probability.

Snapshot projections do not provide a robust expected electoral vote split and win probability. That’s because unlike the Monte Carlo method, they fail to consider the two bedrocks of statistical analysis: The Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem.

For example, assume that Florida’s polls shift 1% from 46-45 to 45-46. This would have a major impact in the electoral vote split. On the other hand, in a Monte Carlo simulation, the change would have just a minimal effect on the expected (average) electoral vote and win probability. The 46-45 poll split means that the race is too close to clearly project a winner; both candidates have a nearly equal win probability.

ELECTION FORECASTING METHODOLOGY

The Law of Large Numbers is the basis for statistical sampling. All things being equal, polling accuracy is directly related to sample size – the larger the sample, the smaller the Margin of Error (MoE). In an unbiased random sample, there is a 95% probability that the vote will fall within the MoE of the mean.

There are two basic methods used to forecast presidential elections:
1) Projections based on state and national polls
2) Time-series regression models

Academics and political scientists create Linear regression models to forecast election vote shares and run the models months in advance of the election. The models utilize time-series data, such as: economic growth, inflation, job growth, interest rates, foreign policy, historical election results, incumbency, approval rating, etc. Regression modeling is an interesting theoretical exercise, but it does not account for daily events which affect voter psychology.

Polling and regression models are analogous to the market value of a stock and its intrinsic (theoretical) value. The latest poll share is the equivalent of the current stock price. The intrinsic value of a stock is based on forecast cash flows. The intrinsic value is rarely equal to the market value.

The historical evidence is clear: state and national polls, adjusted for undecided voters and estimated turnout, are superior to time-series models executed months in advance.

Inherent problems exist in election models, the most important of which is never discussed: Election forecasters and media pundits never account for the probability of fraud. The implicit assumption is that the official recorded vote will accurately reflect the True Vote and that the election will be fraud-free.

ELECTORAL AND POPULAR VOTE WIN PROBABILITIES

The probability of winning the popular vote is a function of the projected 2-party vote share and polling margin of error. These are input to the Excel normal distribution function. The simulation generates a electoral vote win probability that is not sensitive to minor changes in the state polls.

Prob (win) = NORMDIST (Proj, 0.50, MoE/1.96, True)

For each state in an election trial, a random number (RND) between 0 and 1 is generated and compared to the probability of winning the state. For example, if Kerry has a 90% probability of winning Oregon and RND is less than 0.90, Kerry wins 7 electoral votes. Otherwise, if RND is greater than 0.90, Bush wins. The procedure is repeated for all 50 states and DC. The election trial winner has at least 270 EV.

The electoral vote win probability is directly correlated to the probability of winning the national popular vote. But electoral vote win probabilities in models developed by academics and bloggers are often incompatible with the projected national vote shares.

For example, assume a 53% projected national vote share. If the corresponding EV win probability is given 88%, the model design/logic is incorrect; the 53% share and 88% win probability are incompatible. For a 53% share, the win probability is virtually 100%. This is proved using Monte Carlo simulation based on state win probabilities in which there is a 53% aggregate projected national share.

The state win probability is based on the final pre-election polls which typically sample 600 likely voters (a 4% MoE). In the 2004 Election Simulation Model, the electoral vote is calculated using 200 election trials. The average (mean) electoral vote is usually within a few votes of the median (middle value). As the number of simulation trials increase, the mean approaches the theoretical expected value. That is due to the Law of Large Numbers.

2004 ELECTION MODEL

The simulation model consists of 200 election trials based on pre-election state polls and post-election exit polls. It is strong circumstantial evidence that the election was stolen.

In the pre-election model, the state and national polls are adjusted for the allocation of undecided voters. The post-election model is based on unadjusted and adjusted state exit polls. Monte Carlo simulation is used to project state and aggregate vote shares and calculate the popular and electoral vote win probabilities.

The state win probability is a function of 1) the projected vote shares (after allocating undecided voters) and 2) the state poll margin of error.

The expected (theoretical) electoral vote can be calculated using a simple summation formula. It is just the product sum of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

The purpose of the simulation is to calculate the overall probability of winning the electoral vote. As the number of election trials increase, the average (mean) electoral vote will approach the theoretical expected value.

The electoral vote win probability is the ratio of the number of winning election trials to the total number of trials.

In every presidential election, millions of voters are disenfranchised and millions of votes are uncounted. Forecasting models should have the following disclaimer:

Note: The following forecast will surely deviate from the official recorded vote. If they are nearly equal, then there must have been errors in the a) input data, b) assumptions, c) model logic and/or methodology.

Kerry led the weighted pre-election state and national polls by 1%. After allocating 75% of undecided voters to him, he was projected to win by 51.4-47.7%. Kerry had 51.1% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) and 51.7% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents).

The National Election Pool, a consortium of six media giants, funds the exit polls. The published National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote. The Final 2004 NEP adjusted the actual exit poll responses to force a match to the recorded vote (Bush by 50.7-48.3%).

The large discrepancy between the exit polls and the vote count indicates that either a) the pre-election and unadjusted exit polls were faulty or b) the votes were miscounted, or c) a combination of both. Other evidence confirms that the votes were miscounted in favor of Bush.

The True Vote always differs from the official recorded vote due to uncounted, switched and stuffed ballots. Were the pollsters who forecast a Bush win correct? Or were Zogby and Harris correct in projecting that Kerry would win?

None of the pollsters mentioned the election fraud factor – the most important variable of all.

MODEL OVERVIEW

The workbook contains a full analysis of the 2004 election, based on four sets of polls:

(1) Pre-election state polls
(2) Pre-election national polls
(3) Post-election state exit polls
(4) National Exit Poll

Click the tabs at the bottom of the screen to select:
MAIN: Data input and summary analysis.
SIMULATION: Monte Carlo Simulation of state pre-election and exit polls.
NATPRE: Projections and analysis of 18 national pre-election polls.
In addition, three summary graphs are provided in separate sheets.

Calculation methods and assumptions are entered in the MAIN sheet:
1) Calculation code: 1 for pre-election polls; 2 for EXIT polls.
2) Undecided voter allocation (UVA): Kerry’s share (default 75%).
3) Exit Poll Cluster Effect: increase in margin of error (default 30%).
4) State Exit Poll Calculation Method:
1= WPD: average precinct discrepancy.
2= Best GEO: adjusted based on recorded vote geographic weightings.
3= Composite: further adjustment to include pre-election polls.
4= Unadjusted state exit polls

Note: The Composite state exit poll data set (12:40am) was downloaded from the CNN election site by Jonathan Simon. The polls were in the process of being adjusted to the incoming vote counts and weighted to include pre-election polls.The final adjustment at 1am forced a match to the final recorded votes.

Simulation forecast trends are displayed in the following graphs:

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

POLL SAMPLE-SIZE AND MARGIN OF ERROR

Approximately 600 were surveyed in each of the state pre-election polls (a 4% margin of error). The national aggregate has a lower MoE; approximately 30,000 were polled. In 18 national pre-election polls, the samples ranged from 800 (3.5% MoE) to 3500 (1.7% MoE).

In the exit polls, 76,000 voters were sampled. Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.1-47.5%. He also won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (NEP) by 51.7-47.0%. The NEP is a 13,660 sample subset of the state exit polls.The NEP was adjusted to match the recorded vote -using the same 13660 respondents.

Assuming a 30% exit poll “cluster effect” (1.1% MoE), Kerry had a 98% probability of winning the popular vote. The Monte Carlo simulation indicates he had better than a 99% probability of winning the Electoral Vote.

The Election Model was executed weekly from August to the election. It tracked state and national polls which were input to a 5000 trial Monte Carlo simulation. The final Nov. 1 forecast had Kerry winning 51.8% of the two-party vote and 337 electoral votes. He had a 99.8% electoral vote win probability: the percentage of trials in which he had at least 270 electoral votes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NS7iJ-8zPFoP-4TlKqPBS7XnZl2chTW448qiTqzolRc/edit#gid=0

The “cluster effect” is the percentage increase in the theoretical Exit Poll margin of error. When it is not practical to carry out a pure random sample, a common shortcut is to use an area cluster sample: primary Sampling Units (PSUs) are selected at random within the larger geographic area.

The Margin of Error (MoE) is a function of the sample size (n) and the polling percentage split: MoE = 1.96* Sqrt(P*(1-P)/n)

NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The Excel function has a very wide range of applications in statistics, including hypothesis testing.

NORMDIST (x, mean, stdev, cumulative)
X is the value for which you want the distribution.
Mean is the arithmetic mean of the distribution.
Stdev is the standard deviation of the distribution.

EXAMPLE: Calculate the probability Kerry would win Ohio based on the exit poll assuming a 95% level of confidence.
Sample Size = 1963; MoE =2.21%; Cluster effect = 20%; Adj. MoE = 2.65%
Std Dev = 1.35% = 2.65% / 1.96

Kerry win probability:
Kerry = 54.0%; Bush = 45.5%; StdDev = 1.35%
Kerry 2-party share: 54.25%
Probability = NORMDIST(.5425, .5, .0135, TRUE)= 99.92%

BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION

BINOMDIST is used in problems with a fixed number of tests or trials, where the outcome of any trial is success or failure. The trials are independent. The probability of success is constant in each trial (heads or tails, win or lose).

EXAMPLE: Determine the probability that the state exit poll MoE is exceeded in at least n states assuming a 95% level of confidence. The one-tail probability of Bush exceeding his exit poll share by the MoE is 2.5%.
N = 16 states exceeded the MoE at 12:22am in favor of Bush.
The probability that the MoE is exceeded in at least 16 polls for Bush:
= 1- BINOMDIST (15, 50, 0.025, TRUE)
= 5.24E-14 or 1 in 19,083,049,268,519

A SAMPLING PRIMER

The following is an edited summary from http://www.csupomona.edu/~jlkorey/POWERMUTT/Topics/data_collection.html

A random sample is one which each outcome has an equal probability of being included. It is an unbiased estimate of the characteristics of the population in which the respondents are representative of the population as a whole.

The reliability of the sample increases with the size of the sample. Ninety-five times out of a hundred, a random sample of 1,000 will be accurate to within about 3 percentage points. The sample has a margin of error of approximately plus or minus (±) 3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. If a random sample of 1,000 voters shows that 60 percent favor candidate X, there is a 95 percent chance that the real figure in the population is in the 57 to 63 percent range.

Beyond a certain point, the size of the population makes little difference. The confidence interval is not reduced dramatically. Therefore pre-election national polls usually don’t survey more than about 1,500 respondents. Increasing this number increases the cost proportionately, but the margin of error will be reduced only a little.

Often it is not practical to carry out a pure random sample. One common shortcut is the area cluster sample. In this approach, a number of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) are selected at random within a larger geographic area. For example, a study of the United States might begin by choosing a subset of congressional districts. Within each PSU, smaller areas may be selected in several stages down to the individual household. Within each household, an individual respondent is then chosen. Ideally, each stage of the process is carried out at random. Even when this is done, the resulting sampling error will tend to be a little higher than in a pure random sample,[7] but the cost savings may make the trade-off well worthwhile.

Somewhat similar to a cluster sample is a stratified sample. An area cluster sample is appropriate when it would be impractical to conduct a random sample over the entire population being studied. A stratified sample is appropriate when it is important to ensure inclusion in the sample of sufficient numbers of respondents within subcategories of the population.

Even in the best designed surveys, strict random sampling is a goal that can almost never be fully achieved under real world conditions, resulting in non-random (or “systematic”) error. For example, assume a survey is being conducted by phone. Not everyone has one. Not all are home when called. People may refuse to participate. The resulting sample of people who are willing and able to participate may differ in systematic ways from other potential respondents.

Apart from non-randomness of samples, there are other sources of systematic error in surveys. Slight differences in question wording may produce large differences in how questions are answered. The order in which questions are asked may influence responses. Respondents may lie.

Journalists who use polls to measure the “horse race” aspect of a political campaign face additional problems. One is trying to guess which respondents will actually turn out to vote. Pollsters have devised various methods for isolating the responses of “likely voters,” but these are basically educated guesses. Exit polls, in which voters are questioned as they leave the voting area, avoid this problem, but the widespread use of absentee voting in many states creates new problems. These issues are usually not a problem for academic survey research. Such surveys are not designed to predict future events, but to analyze existing patterns. Some are conducted after the election. The American National Election Study, for example, includes both pre and post election interviews. Post election surveys are not without their own pitfalls, however. Respondents will sometimes have a tendency to report voting for the winner, even when they did not.

The American National Election Study split its sample between face to face and telephone interviews for its 2000 pre-election survey. The response rate was 64.8 percent for the former, compared to 57.2 percent for the latter. An analysis of a number of telephone and face-to-face surveys showed that face-to-face surveys were generally more representative of the demographic characteristics of the general population. Note that many telephone surveys produce response rates far lower than that obtained by the ANES.

Another approach is the online poll, in which the “interaction” is conducted over the Internet. Like robo polls, online polls are also less expensive than traditional telephone surveys, and so larger samples are feasible. Because they require respondents to “opt in,” however, the results are not really random samples.

When samples, however obtained, differ from known characteristics of the population (for example, by comparing the sample to recent census figures), samples can be weighted to compensate for under or over representation of certain groups. There is still no way of knowing, however, whether respondents and non-respondents within these groups differ in their political attitudes and behavior.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 1, 2011 in 2004 Election

 

Tags: , , , ,

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

April 8, 2012

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

Mark Lindeman is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Bard College, NY. He wrote Beyond Exit Poll Fundamentalism to refute the argument that elections are systemically fraudulent and that exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. http://www.marklindeman.org/beyond-epf.pdf

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 7% exit poll discrepancy in 2004 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 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.

I wrote 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. In that election, the mainstream media hoodwinked millions into believing that Bush won a three million vote “mandate”. The media prepares the scam with Likey Voter pre-election polls that are biased in favor of the GOP. After the election, the National Election Pool (NEP) exit pollsters adjust the numbers in order to match the (bogus) recorded votes with adjustments that are mathematically impossible. See the 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

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

For example, consider the media myth that the 2000 election was close. Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But he led the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. He also led in the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%. The exit polls confirmed the True Vote Model – and vice-versa.

Bush stole Florida and the election by 537 official votes. But pre-election and unadjusted exit polls indicated that Gore easily won the state. There were at least 185,000 spoiled, uncounted ballots (underpunched and overpunched). Gore had at least 110,000 votes – a minimum 40,000 margin.

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 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. But the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (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 calculated a feasible returning 2004 voter mix and used the published National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares: 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 adviser in writing the piece. The article was immediately debunked by a number of well-respected election researchers. They noticed a number of statistical and logical errors.

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

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

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

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

A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ
by Mark Lindeman

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, so what are TIA’s arguments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ Summary and Response

1. The Pre-Election Polls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.4. How about the state polls?

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

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

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

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

1.5. What about cell phones?

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

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

The “Rules”: Did They Favor Kerry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Describing the Exit Poll Discrepancies

3.1. How do the exit polls work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008: The unadjusted national exit poll (17,836 respondents) shows that Obama led by 61-37% – a 30 million margin. He led the weighted, unadjusted state exit polls of 81,388 respondents by 58-40.5%, exactly matching the True Vote Model. Obama did 5.1% better than the recorded vote. The discrepancies are far beyond the 1.0% margin of error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIA:
It is more accurate to say that the official vote understated Kerry’s True Vote. The Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System reported than the MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in favor of Bush. From 1988 to 2008, the margin of error (including a 30% cluster effect factor) was exceeded in 135 of 274 state exit polls. The probability of that is zero. All but 4 red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability of that is zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIA
The polls were “presumably” wrong?. I suppose it was “presumably” coincidental that in the last 6 elections, the margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls – and 131 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 unadjusted 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 the 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:
Unadjusted exit poll update: The unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) shows that Obama had 61%. And the unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) show 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 by 540,000. But he won the unadjusted state exit polls by 6 million (50.8-44.5%).  False recall and swing vs. red-shift assumed that the 2000 election was fair. 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 2008 Final NEP 46/37% returning voter mix was due to Kerry voters misstating their past vote and returning Bush voters were reluctant to be interviewed? It’s a true Hobson’s choice dilemma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TruthIsAll FAQ:
Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of FAQ Summary Update
________________________________________________________________________________

 

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