Former MIT mathematics professor analyzes exit polls versus reported vote

[deacon]

11/8/2004
Odds of Bush gaining by 4 percent in all exit polling states 1 in 50,000

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=405

[aquart]

1. Yeah, how about that?

[tridim]

2. Did ABC News call him a conspiracy theorist yet?

[intheflow]

3. I'm confused: "Evoting/paper variance not found to be significant"

On the one hand, they say that the results are statistically insignificant, but then they end by calling for additional investigation because even so "In no state did Bush have a loss. Bush’s support in the reported vote tallies went up in every single state compared with the exit polling."

So they're calling for more investigation even though they think the result variances are insignificant? Please explain to me how this helps anything.

[DELUSIONAL]

6. My understanding is that if these were in fact true errors

we should have seen at least 50% of the errors breaking in Kerry's favor.

Apparently the bushie hackers were careful to fly under the significant difference bar -- but they sort of forget the other rule -- that the errors should also be in Kerry's favor.

[intheflow]

10. Thanks for the clarification.

I failed statistics twice, so all this number crunching is making my head swim. :crazy:

[bigmust]

4. so the professor didn't find any

correlation between the discrepancies and the voting system that was used.

"...the analysis found that states using optical scan technology to read paper ballots were not more likely to have exit poll variance than other states. Because New York, which uses lever balloting, had such a large variance, the optical scan variance is within the threshold of being statistically explained by chance."

[ConsAreLiars]

9. Both optical scan and touchscreen votes go thru computerized

counting systems. Fraud can occur at many levels. The fact that the evidence shows that the type of input machinery, overall and across all states, did not protewct against the skewing of the results only means that either different techniques were used in different states, or the central tabulator was the target rather than the machines in the precincts that were used directly by voters.

Indeed, Bev and Andy at http://www.blackboxvoting.org and others have suggested before the election that the central tabulators were the easiest and most likely target for fraud.

[DELUSIONAL]

5. Article forwarded to MIT graduate

It would appear that some non political types are now awake -- and looking at the data.

[Straight Shooter]

7. This is being discussed on presidential election and results

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=32867#35591

Interesting analysis in both forums.

[deacon]

8. The media didn't question GOP tactics in Ohio

The Democrats didn't sequester the ballot counters and not allow press or poll watchers in, claiming the 10 level of Homeland Security in Ohio.

And, 29 Democratic counties in Florida went Bush on the Optic Scan machines, do me a frigging favor!!!!! Gimme a break.

Also, something new.

One of my employees can identify one person that did bring in the majority of those cards that we didn’t enter into our rolls because addresses didn’t exist,” said Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera, explaining why her office disqualified several provisional ballots.

Currently, one percentage point of the vote total separates President George Bush from Senator John Kerry in the race to claim New Mexico’s five electoral votes.

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=14841&cat=HOME

Another damn crooked election, period.

[pa28]

11. It's a miracle. The immaculate election. n/t