2002 Senate Election Fraud Probability Analysis: re-written for clarity

[TruthIsAll]

THE PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS
A statistical analysis of the Senate 2002 elections has employed basic probability theory to determine the odds that four out of eight hotly contested Senate races would dramatically turn from the Democrat to the Republican, based on the latest polling numbers taken just prior to the election.

See: American Coup: Mid-Term Election Polls vs Actuals
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0211/S00078.htm

These results should be taken in the context of the paper "Analysis of an Electronic Voting System", written by four computer scientists. They assert that their analysis of the Diebold electronic voting system shows that "it is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts".

The statistical analysis does NOT constitute proof of fraud, but nevertheless are highly incriminating as circumstantial evidence.

THE POLLING MARGIN OF ERROR
The probability that a given state poll will be correct within the +/- 3% margin of error (MOE) is 19 out of 20 or 95%.

The odds that 4 out of 8 elections would fall outside the MOE (and ALL go for the Repubs) is 1 out of 43,040.

THE STATES IN QUESTION
The four states which experienced these remarkable turnarounds were:

1-Minnesota: The Democrats were leading 47-39% in the final polls; the Republicans won by 50-47%, an 11 point switch.

2-Georgia: The Democrats were leading 49-44% in the final polls; the Republicans won by 53-46%, a 12 point switch.

3-Texas: The Democrats were trailing by 48-49% in the final polls; the Republicans won by 55-43%, an 11 point switch.

4-New Hampshire: The Democrats were leading by 46-40% in the final polls; the Republicans won by 51-47%, a 10 point switch.

Each of these races turned around with deviations significantly beyond the 6% margin of error range.

Out of 8 races, the probability that ALL would fall WITHIN the margin of error =66.3%, or 2 out of 3. Stated another way, the chances that 1 or more states would fall OUTSIDE the MOE =33.7%, or 1 out of 3.

THE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION PROBABILITY FUNCTION
The statistical analysis utilized the Cumulative Binomial Distribution function. This function computes the probability that there would be at least (N) successes in a series of (T) independent trials, where (P) is the probability of success in any trial. For any values of N,T,and P the Probability is calculated using the Excel Function: =BINOMDIST(N,T,P,TRUE)

For the case of 4 out of 8, with 95% probability
= BINOMDIST(4,8,.95,TRUE)= 0.000371751

In addition, the probability is 1/2 (50%) that any given election falling outside the MOE would go for the Democrat (or Republican). Therefore, the probability that ALL four would fall for the Republican is the product 1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2= 1/16

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The odds that 4 out of 8 hotly contested Senate elections would fall outside the MOE (all for the Repubs) is the Joint Probability: 1/16*.000371751= .0000232, or 1 out of 43,040.

Assuming that 16 elections were hotly contested, The odds that 4 out of 16 elections would fall outside the MOE (all for the Repubs) is
1 out of 2,284.

Assuming that ALL 34 elections were hotly contested, the odds that 4 out of 34 elections would fall outside the MOE(all for the Repubs) is
1 out of 182.

[DUreader]

1. TIA That Election Fraud Thread Never did Really Die in the Archives

Look how far we have come since then, despite the frustrations

and for me many thoughts that it was going too slow and would

never see any media focus what so ever

I'm not optimistic yet, but damn I think we have made some difference

even those , like me , who have not done much more than keeping shit

kicked.


KICK!

[SharonAnn]

2. Thanks, I always "knew" this in my gut but it's good to have

it statistically examined and explained.

Thanks for the work on this. I'm saving it for future reference.

[gristy]

3. There's another thing you're going to have to factor in

and that is THE SPEECH by Rick Kahn at the Wellstone memorial.

Are your polls from before or after? My guess is they were taken before.

Kahn's speech drove huge numbers of those on the fence over to the Republicans - and not just in Minnesota.

[loudsue]

13. That's pure repuke propaganda....

It was debunked here at the time, and it's obvious the right-wing extremists had everything to do with that little charade. Only the people voting repug, regardless, supported the whole notion.

:kick:

[whoYaCallinAlib]

4. So, what can we do with this information?

How do we use these statistics?

[DUreader]

5. What we have done so far is pursue evidence of Fraud

[whoYaCallinAlib]

7. Then, watcha gonna do?

Seriously, where do you go from here with these statistics?

[DUreader]

9. Continue pursuing it, the same question was asked nov.'02

Seen the Latest News?

[ShaneGR]

6. Low voter turnout?

Sorry, just pointing the easiest explanation.

[DUreader]

8. Check the voter stats, they have been posted here, no real change

historically speaking, IIRC

All the explanations for the upset evaporated when the voter stats were

released

[ISUGRADIA]

11. Look at all the polls

One cannot just pick and choose the most favorable polls to build a case that these election results were suspiciously out of whack. Look at the various polls for GA, NH, and TX here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/Senate_02_Polls.html

It then becomes apparent that the results in these races were in line statiscally speaking with any margain of error listed.

MN was a special case obviously. The day before the election debate and the whole Wellstone Memorial debacle swung things dramatically there. The party made a mistake pulling an out of touch Fritz Mondale into the race. Mondale's son, Ted, probably would have won.

[TruthIsAll]

12. My Response..

The polls I referenced were way beyond the MOE range of 6%; others were also greater than 6%, if not as high. Even if the deviations are 6%, the analysis and results would be the same. If anything, my results are conservative in that a cut-off MOE deviation range of 6% (-3% to +3%) is assumed; since the deviation threshold were higher, the odds of fraud are greater than that calculated.

One correction should be noted. The NH poll numbers I reference were from the original SCOOP Nov. 2002 article when I first did the analysis. These poll results are no longer listed. I cannot account for this. In any case, even if we eliminate NH, and compute the probability that 3 out of 8 would fall outside the MOE, the odds are still very low: 1 out of 1,382.

Note the case: (3 states outside the MOE, out of 8 states)

N.........3........4.......5.............6
8 1,382 43,040 2,077,263 159,672,547
10 695 15,557 502,435 23,234,010
13 326 5,156 111,666 3,240,553
16 186 2,284 37,326 791,105
20 106 1,006 12,432 194,355
25 63 469 4,466 52,763
30 43 263 2,047 19,497
34 33 182 1,235 10,208

[waggawagga]

10. Hmmmm

This probability analysis is nutty. The assumptions the authors are making is that voter behavior is essentially random. For every voter who changes from A to B there has to be someone who goes from B to A, and so on. If that were true you'd only have to take one poll.

The truth is basically the opposite. Public support for a candidate surges and wanes. An odd poll result is one where, over time, changes in support for a candidate appear random (eg. one day at 60%, the next day at 39%, the day after 55%). A good poll result usually shows broad patterns (eg. the accumulation or loss of 1-2 points day by day) punctuated by large changes which are tied to specific events (eg. the bump presidential candidates get around convention time).

The fact that the polls cited were all "off" by the same 10-11 points doesn't suggest fraud or even some huge failure in the methodology of these polls. A random spread (+5 here, -5 there) would be strange because public sentiment, generally, is not random. One party goes up while the other goes down. That's the expected result.

Lastly, anyone who has followed elections during the past 15 years knows that election eve poll numbers are not that reliable. There seems to be this large segment of the public which doesn't make up their minds until the last moment. Decades ago it was often the case that this group would split down the middle (thus cancelling each other out). Lately, though, as a group they seem to break for one candidate.

Clinton got these people in '92. Dole got them in '96. Gore got them in 2000. If you look at statewide races you'll see the same phenomenon (eg. Hillary Clinton got them in NY). In 2002 the Republicans got them.

The above, btw, is one reason why I don't put too much stock in Bush's high poll numbers since 9/11. These people, whatever they tell pollsters today, are still on the fence and will break for whichever candidate looks good at the last minute (understanding who these people are should be job one of the Democrats, as much as I hate to say it I think it was the Wellstone memorial service which turned them off in 2002, they're a fickle bunch, but if a candidate knows how to appeal to them bumps of ten points or more during the last few days of an election cycle are not unusual, expect this in 2004).