Mathematical Proof that TV Network Exit Polling data is FRAUDULENT

[Petrodollar Warfare]

Some suggested my analysis deserved its own thread, so here it is.

Mathematical Proof That Reported TV Network Exit Polling Data is Fraudulent

In this post I am going to prove via simple mathematics that the "reported" TV Network exit polling data is not based upon the actual exit poll samples from the 4th/final "real" exit polls that were conducted around 6-7pm. This divergence from the original exit polling data helps explain why last week's Presidential Election results in the states of Ohio and Florida are based on fraudulent manipulation of the "network's final exit poll" data in an effort to reflect what is obviously "mistabulated" machine votes.

The two critical issues listed in the data set from the below post are 1) the sample sizes of the final exit polls, and 2) the time stamps for when the networks "revised" the exit poll data to better reflect the machine counts.

A Must Read ** Breakthrough ** – EXIT POLL ANALYSIS FOR 47 STATES
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x36314

OK, for anyone who finished High School, this math is pretty simple stuff, and it shows that we are being lied to on a profound scale in at least two of the critical states in last week's election. First, please disregard any "spin" you might have heard from GOP operatives and media pundits about how they had to "re-weight" some of exit polls because they polled "too many African-Americans," or too "many women" in the early exit polls, etc. That is all irrelevant as far as the following analysis is concerned. Let's stick to basics.

Below is the exit polling data for Ohio which includes the final 6pm data based on a sample of 1963 voters with Kerry in a comfortable lead (at 7:32pm), along with the mysterious 1:41am update of the data that suddenly showed Bush with a comfortable lead. Please note the sample size of voters increased from 1963 to 2020, a total of 57 exit voters.

Ohio 47.9 52.1 1963 7:32 PM 3.1
(Ohio 50.9 48.6 2020 1:41 AM 0.3)

Let's do the math. From the final exit polls till after midnight it showed Kerry in the lead:

Bush (.479 x 1963 voters) = 940 voters
Kerry (.521 x 1963 voters) = 1022 voters

...but at 1:41am exit poll update/"sweep?" occurred via AP and suddenly Bush gains a huge post-midnight advantage....but is this possible if the sample size only increased from 1963 to 2020, a total of 57?

Let's do the math:
Bush now (.509 x 2020) = 1028 voters
Kerry now (.486 x 2020) = 981 voters

Well, how is it possible that Bush gained 88 voters (!) given the sample size increased by only 57, while Kerry lost 41 voters? Let me repeat something for the faith-based community and or treasonous media pundits who ignore what we in the reality-based community see as obviously fraudulent data. The simply reason is...

THIS IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!

Do you want confirmation of the data? No problem, the below thread actually has screen shots of CNN as they mysteriously changed the data at 1:41am...and it even includes the gender break-downs, etc.

Kerry winning Exit Polls - FRAUD LOOKS PROBABLE (See posts 196 & 215)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1290765

Well, maybe the exit polls in Ohio were wrong? No sir, the same post-midnight update/sweep that shows manipulation of the exit polling data also occurred in Florida at 1:01 am...and the similarity is striking. Here's the 12:21am data that reflects the final real exit poll data, along with the post 1am exit poll "sweep" of the data...

Florida 49.8 49.7 2846 12:21am 2.5
(Florida 51.4 47.6 2862 1:01am 0.6 )

So, at 12:21 am...
Bush had (.498 x 2846 voters) = 1417 voters
Kerry had (.497 x 2846 voters) = 1414 voters

...but at 1:01am the final exit poll sweep occurred via AP and suddenly Bush gains a huge post-midnight advantage....but how? The sample size only increased from 2846 to 2862, a total of 16 voters(!)

Again, let's do some High School math:
Bush now has (.514 x 2862) = 1471 voters
Kerry now has (.476 x 2862) = 1362 voters

Hmmm, if we are to believe this, at 1:01am Bush gained 54 voters (never mind the sample size only increased by 16), while poor John Kerry lost 52 voters (again, never mind that the sample size increased by only 16). Regardless of whatever the latest spin is about "crashed servers" giving late exit poll updates the fact is these "updates" are not mathematically possible within the known Universe. Does our subservient media think their treasonous acts against The American People will go unnoticed? Not for this Patriot.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!

So folks, either we have entered the Orwellian Universe where the laws of mathematics simply do not apply, or the 1am "exit poll sweep" attempted to match the unauditable machine counts with the real exit polls, but in order to do so it had to violate the laws of mathematics, and reverse the data from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and final exit polls that showed a Kerry victory.

In the reality-based community that is called FRAUD, but in the faith-based community this is called "conspiracy theory."

Based on my background in Information Security (INFOSEC), I would suggest we may be looking at someone who performed around 1am blatant manipulation of the AP "exit poll" data with an incremental increase in sample size that was done sloppily and in violation of mathematical laws, and a remote hack of the Windows-based machines that tabulated the states total votes (Both Ohio and Florida could be hacked from anywhere if the modem access numbers were compromised), or we could be looking at perhaps a "man-in-the-middle" attack to change county/state totals in which the county or counties dialed up a 'rogue labtop,' who then forwarded the "massaged" data on to the central GEMs computer/server for the state's tabulated results.

This is not improbable given that INFOSEC/Computer Scientists have documented and tested how simple it is to manipulate the data in the GEMS server. This is simple to accomplish given the known security flaws in the Diebold system (and possibly the ES&S system), and it is not difficult to change what is in essence a Microsoft Access Database.

All you really need are the modem access number(s), and maybe a simple password cracking program, assuming you were an "outsider" hacker without any help from the "inside" (ie. Diebold/ES&S or a county/state elections employee).

Would you like verification of that statement? No problem, and I should note the following are only two of seven findings from an independent review of the Diebold touchscreen system which they set up in a "real-world" environment to test its security from hacking - the results were shocking. (Many of these issues likely applies to ES&S as well). Note, this study was done in January 2004:

"1. The GEMS server lacks several critical security updates from Microsoft. As a result, the team successfully exploited a well-known vulnerability using a software product known as Canvas"..."By successfully directing Canvas at the GEMS modem interface, the team was able to remotely upload, download and execute files with full system administrator privileges. All that was required was a valid phone number for the GEMS server." (page 20 of 25)

"6. Social Engineering/Phone line hijacking: The procedure by which precincts upload votes to their LBE (Local Board of Elections) is vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack. This is the result of an incomplete implementation of the SSL protocol."..."Specifically, the team demonstrated how a labtop could act as a GEMS server. If one could convince the precinct judge to dial into an attacker's labtop then that laptop would not only receive the election results, it would be able to acquire the name and password to access the GEMS sever. With this name and password in hand, the attacker could upload modified results to the GEMS server - all in real time." (page 21 of 25)

Trusted Agent Report Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System (January 20, 2004)
http://www.raba.com/press/TA_Report_AccuVote.pdf

Here’s the issue the media would be discussing is they were upholding their obligations to the People in an effort to inform them, instead of following the corporate/government dictates. The AP "revised" the final 4th/real exit polls which significantly affected the “reported” results in Florida (Bush +7%), Minnesota (Bush +7%), New Hampshire (Bush +15%), Pennsylvania (Bush +5%), North Carolina (Bush +9%) and Wisconsin (Bush +4%). All of these states with the possible exception of Wisconsin fall well outside the Margin of Error (MOE) and deserve careful analysis for Election Fraud.

What we desperately need are the associated sample sizes of the 4th/final exit polls that were posted on various Network/ Internet sites from about 7pm till perhaps 10-11pm, versus the sample sizes for the suspect AP "exit poll sweep" that occurred later that night. Things began to happen late on evening of Nov 2nd and early in the morning regarding shifts in "revised exit poll" data that was designed to "better reflect" the machine counts - regardless of what the first 4/real exit polls showed. If anyone has similar exit polling data with sample sizes for the 5 swing states in question and preserved it on "screen shots" durng election night that would be sincerely appreciated! I'll do the calculations, I just need the backup.

Bottom Line: We are being lied to about the actual exit polling data, and the networks are not addressing the divergence that seems to plague only certain states, which either in part or in whole use e-Voting machines. Moreover, the final exit poll variances in some of the "swing states" is both divergent from the (pre-sweep) exit polling data, and based on the above analysis it was not a random event as would be expected if the exit polling methodology was somehow flawed. Everything reported past 1am was skewed towards Bush, regardless of previous multiple polling data/trends.

We also know these e-voting systems do not provide a paper audit trail, and have been proven by numerous computer scientists and INFOSEC experts (RABA Technologies) to be easily hackable. Indeed, computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice University candidly stated in their 2003 technical analysis of serious security flaws in the Diebold source code and warned of the following:

“We present a security analysis of the source code to one such (e-Voting) machine (Diebold) used in a significant share of the market. Our analysis shows that this system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts"..."We conclude that this system is unsuitable for use in a general election. Any paperless electronic voting system might suffer similar flaws, despite any “certification” it could have otherwise received. We suggest that the best solutions are voting systems having a “voter-verifiable audit trail,” where a computerized voting system might print a paper ballot that can be read and verified by the voter.”

Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
http://avirubin.com/vote/analysis /

Furthermore, RABA Technologies - an INFOSEC firm, conducted an in-depth "test environment" that simulated Diebold voting systems as they were deployed last week all across America. Their findings of security flaws are even more disconcerting given their team's ability to easily and transparently hack the system and change the results that mimicked Diebold's actual voting system in operation.

The only way to verify if these well-documented and easily exploited vulnerabilities actually occurred would require an INFOSEC forensic investigation of the source code in the computers which did the actual county and/or state tabulations, and an analysis of all modem/network activity from the county to the central tabulators in the weeks before and during the election. This could be accomplished by a team of expert network analysts and INFOSEC experts - and for less money than that "army of lawyers" that we heard so much about.

However, despite the obviously imperative need for a full INFOSEC investigation based on the publicly known data - I do not expect this type of investigation to occur in a willing manner within our current political structure. Too many of us have become too arrogant, too complacent, whole swaths of citizens seem unable to think critically like our forefathers did, and we as a nation are unable to face the reality that is staring back at us - that our slow decent into Fascism was solidified with last week's Fraudulent Election.

Thus, it is with great sadness and anger I must profess my analysis of extreme variances in the data strongly supports the our Election was indeed hacked in at least two states, possibly more, and that We The People no longer live under a functional Democratic Republic. Thomas Paine stated at the founding of our nation:

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away thus right is to reduce man to slavery."

[jean]

1. this is an excellent NOMINEE for our home page!

[glitch]

2. Done! nt

[lovedems]

3. Don't forget to send it to BBV and Olbermann and the rest of the

interested folks!

Very nice work!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

8. On the contrary, it's quite clear.

However, the posts over on FreeRepublic are hard to read. Ever been there?

[CAcyclist]

17. It's clear to me

If I can understand it as a totally non-computer person, it's very easy to understand.

[MinneapolisMatt]

5. Wow.

I actually understand that! (Math + Me = Bad)

That's really clear. Thanks!

[jean]

6. Welcome, Matt

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

7. Nominated.

And I stink at math!

[whosinpower]

9. I have a question

In regards to the exit polls you listed - you are saying that the first group of people surveyed in the exit poll gave a picture that was unacceptable to the powers that be....so did they repoll a whole group of new people and have more people polled - or just talk to a few more and use the existing data.....I guess that is my question - but I suppose it would have to be directed to the pollsters.....

[On the Road]

10. No, It's Not Proof

because they're not measuring raw votes. They're taking raw numbers and weighting them to reflect the people who turned up at the polls. (If I'm mistaken, please let me know. It's not very clear, but that's how I read it.)

The original numbers were probably weighted based on the 2000 election. Maybe there were some other changes for population growth, etc.

But if turnout was markedly different -- say, twice as many people showed up at polling places in Republican counties -- the weightings were no good. They would have to be changed, and some groups would inevitably "lose" votes in the process.

Now, I'm not saying the election was free and fair. It is very suspicious that the exit polls were so far off. But it's important to make an accusation with the most convincing argument. The article on the Zogby site is more persuasive because the author can vouch for the historical record of exit polls and demonstrate that this election is an anomaly. That's all that can be done. The rest requires an investigation of the votes.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

14. You weight demograghic variables...not *sample* size.

While exit polls do conduct "weighting" for various demographic variables (ie. race, gender, etc), you can not weight polls for "people." Afterall, 1 person polled = 1 person polled regarding overall sample size. If N = 1963 voters/people at 12 midnight, and N = 2020 voters/people at 1am, how does one ascribe different "weights" to the two sample sizes to show the overall variance/shift in total Bush vs. Kerry percentages? Answer: You can't - at least not using the laws of mathematics...perhaps its fuzzy math? BTW, the 2000 election has nothing to do with the particular results that I posted.

Remmember, exit polling methodology is a very mature science that has been conducted accurately around the world for the past 3 decades, and even in this country throughout the 1980s-1990s, at least up until 2000 election in Florida, and now it appears "off" on multiple states - skewing in one and only direction. The variable that has changed is not exit polling metholodogy, but voting technology. A someone who has studied statistics (in MBA school) and Information Technology/INFOSEC during a 2nd Master's degree, I find this type of analysis...interesting...but not surprising. Politics has always been a high-stakes game.

Anyhow, my mathametical analysis is based purely whole integers that are not is any way weighted during exit polls. (N = sample size, which can not be weighted in the overall analysis) I hope this info helps.

[On the Road]

16. This is What I Had in Mind

"How does one ascribe different "weights" to the two sample sizes?"

You ascribe different weights for various demographic variables between the first and second versions of the exit polls. If the weightings are done assuming 50% of voters are women and the actual turnout shows 60% women, the exit polls will change even if N is constant. This is how I understood the pollsters' explanation.

In and of itself, this is perfectly reasonable. The question is whether this is all that was done, and where the data came from that was used to reweight.

There actually IS another variable in this election, namely large and uneven increases in turnout. If there was monkey business going on, turnout was used to mask and explain away trends that would have raised eyebrows otherwise.

[CAcyclist]

19. This is my question too.

As I see it, it's impossible to reweigh the exit polls based on the actual turnout because the votes don't tell you if the voter is black or white, female or male so the actual turnout can't show 60% women - only the exit poll can do that.

So , it seems to me, the only way to reweigh is if as stated above uneven turnout, so the polls are used to adjust each other. But that is apparently not what AP did.

[On the Road]

21. The Only Data Source for Demographics is Geography

so I was assuming that they reweighted based on turnout at different polling locations. That was available once the precincts reported. It doesn't give the demographics directly, though. So that assumption may be incorrect. Do you know how the weighting was done, or know how to find out?

The reweighting and differential in response rates (Republicans not talking to pollsters) seem like legitimate points, but that doesn't mean they explain the whole discrepancy. I do numbers all the time that I can explain, but sometimes find out are wrong to my own private horror. There may be more going on here. The discrepancy is big.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

22. Gendar is not the issue, nor can it explain the variance.

Just a quick note:

"If the weightings are done assuming 50% of voters are women and the actual turnout shows 60% women, the exit polls will change even if N is constant."

Well, if you look over the CNN screen shots from the first post that I listd you'll see Ohio exit poll results from Nov 3rd at 1:41 am compared to the screen shots from 12:21am, and you'll see the actual breakdown of gender. However, the math is still impossible. At the 4th/final exit poll (using 12:21am data), 47% of the exit voters were male, and 53% were female (which is typical given that since 1980 females have voted in slightly higher frequencies than males) Bush was 49% male, Kerry had 51% male. Bush had 47% female, Kerry had 53% female. N = 1963.

However, to put your argument to bed, even if you assumed all of the those 57 votes were male and then applied all 57 of these new polled voters to Bush for his % of male vote column, Bush's colum could still not increase - using the laws of mathematics - from 49% male to 52% male. (with Kerry's corresponding numbers going from 51% male to 47% male.)

For example, let's take Bush's 940 voters (47.9% of 1963), then take his 49% of them as males as reported by CNN = 461 males, then add 57 more "new males" for the 1:41am data = 518 males. Now, take Bush's 479 females (47% of 940) and add 518M + 479F = 997 total voters for his revised 1:41 am data. Well, we know N = 2020, so divide that by 997 as a revised total against 2020 and Bush has 49.4% of the vote, but the "reported" exit polls show Bush with 51%(50.9% to be precide) - and this assumes that all of these 57 new voters only voted for Bush, not Kerry and not for any 3rd Party candidates as well. Nonetheless, Kerry would still have his original 1022 voters even if all 57 of these new male exit voters went to Bush, so Kerry would still have 50.6% of the total vote, not 49% (or 48.6% to be exact). Again, the laws of mathemeatics are not negotiable, unless we now live in the Orwellian world "where all votes are equal, but some votes are better than others"...

Likewise, when N = 2020, and even if you took all 57 of these reported 1:41am exit poll voters, assumed they were women, and gave them all to Bush, the math still does not allow his deficit to go from 47% of the female vote to 50%, with Kerry's share of the vote decreasing from 53% of the female vote to 50% (tied with Bush accrding to CNN). Let's do the math...

Take Bush's 47% of female vote (with his same 940 voters from the 12:21 am data) = 442 Females, add 57 new voters (1:41am "revised data"), = 499F + his male vote of 461M = 960 total voters.

Hmmm, that's even less than above. But just to nullify your argument of gender weighting, let's do the math on this as well:

960 Bush voters/2020 voters total = 47.5% of the vote. Well, I'm sure that John Kerry would not even mind if all 57 of those "revised exit poll" voters went to Bush's column, as Kerry would still have 1022 voters (his number unchanged from the 12:21am data), which would give him a 50.6% plurality, not the reported 49%/48.6% deficit.

SEE, IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE - AND BLATANT.

In fact, given that both male and female columns moved in Bush's favor (4% and 6% variance for males and females), and the overall precentage of male versus females for both sample remained constant at 47% to 53% - it is not even close to mathematically possible to come up with the Bush 51% vs Kerry 49% exit polls.

There is no evidence that the data was re-weighted, nor could any "weighting" of only 57 voters produce the significant reversal of the percentages. Again, I just offered you both extremes of how these mysterious 57 voters can not possibly account for the sudden 1:41am skew of "reported" exit poll voters towards Bush. Remember my Motto:

THIS IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!

As many have noticed, from a purely mathematical model - these 1am AP exit poll "sweeps" of Ohio's data (and Florida's) appear to be some sort of fictional data set designed to reflect machine counts that were at great variance to 4 consecutive exit polls that showed a Kerry victory. Whatever manipulation took place at 1am, it was not within the laws of mathematics. Period.

Like Iraq, blind faith and spin is their friend, reality and science is their foe. To each his own, but I'll choose reality everytime ;-)

[On the Road]

24. Maybe They Were Adjusted to a Fictional Data Set

but if they were adjusted at all, how do you know the data was fictional? Do you know how the weighting and reweighting were done? What the original source was based on where the new data came from. I don't, and I'm curious. I had some assumptions based on the kind of weightings I normally do, but they didn't seem to work out as well once I tried spelling out the process.

And as far as the addition 57 votes, I think everyone agrees that those are not the source of the changes. It's reweighting a base that's virtually identical.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

25. I don't think they were adjusted, I think they were "submitted"

..but who "submitted" them I do not know. That's why we need an INFOSEC forensic investigation.

"...how do you know the data was fictional."

I don't. But as an empericist I do know that the data is NOT based on the laws of mathematics. I think Spock once said that "..once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is in fact possible." Fraud on these auditless e-Voting machines is more than possible, it is practically invited.

This analysis supports fraudulent reporting of exit poll data, and "electioneering" is certianly nothing new in this country. Like I said, exit poll methodology is a mature science, but the level of sophistication in e-Voting is much more steathy due to the intrinsic technology - it's bytes over a wire. It's like sending your vote via an email to Diebold or ES&S, who then announces the results of the "election," but refuses to offer any type of paper audit or reconcillation process due to "trade secrets." Their response is nothing less than: "Its secret/proprietary, but you can trust us."

I don't trust the machine count because multiple exit polls in 6 swing states showed a different outcome well outside the MOE, and High School math refutes the possability that the AP's reported exit polls reflect the 4th/final exit polls based on sample sizes with the same gender composition as the earlier polls, and similar composition of "race." This is not rocket science, just observable facts and simple math. As for your next point:

"It's reweighting a base that's virtually identical."

Well, you now have the data, "re-weight" as you please. But given my review of the gender data, and race data as found on CNN, neither can account for such a significant shift in the precentages. I know that exit polling weighting is done on race and to a much lessor degree gender, but remember - the gender split stayed the same in both samples, so did the white male percentage (40%), and the white female percent went up one notch from 45 to 46%. The data sets relative to the sample size are essentially the same.

Unless you know of a "3rd gender" of some sort, you will not be able to construct a data set that matches what was reported. Good luck.

[On the Road]

39. Unless You Know How They Did it

you don't know whether it's based on mathematics or not. I don't know what data the exit polls used to reweight, or even whether it's appropriate data. But in assuming they were merely made up, you're not being an empiricist -- you're taking a huge leap of faith.

It shouldn't be that difficult to establish. As you point out, a lot of the data needed isn't readily available. Turnout by polling station (which correlates with demographics) IS available, which makes me think it figures prominently in what they did.

Please don't make grandiose pronouncements about a methodology neither you or I are familiar with. Open-minded readers with a healthy skepticism read threads like this and conclude that none of us know what we're talking about, and go on to falsely conclude that there's no evidence of fraud.

If I find something about the reweighting methodology, I'll post it. Please do the same. Then we'll have something substantial to look at and criticize.

[On the Road]

41. I Have Not Been Able to Find a Description of the Methodology

used in weighting the exit polls, but I did find this from a discussion with Steven Coll, a Washington Post editor:

Washington, D.C.: I don't understand The Post's polling numbers, because they contradict each other. Looking at the math according to different demographic groups, it simply doesn't add up. According to your breakdowns with regard to gender, party affiliation, ideology, region and 2000 presidential vote, Kerry has a clear statistical lead. Yet according to religious affiliation and perhaps issues, Bush wins. What's going on here? Why the statistical contradictions?

Steve Coll: The exit poll numbers we have paid for and been provided simply do not add up. They are internally inconsistent in important ways. They also are out of whack with voting results in ways that are difficult to explain. One thesis being explored today is shorthanded as the problem of "female skew." This refers to the fact that women are more likely than men to agree to be interviewed about their votes outside of polling stations. In fact, in the exit polls we received yesterday, there were more women in the sample than we expected to see in the final turnout. But the analysts handling this data believed that this distortion would not change the general trend of the poll and had been weighed to some extent by the poll's managers. We need to review questions such as this one in greater depth, although one's confidence that it will ever be possible to conduct accurate exit polls in the heat of a campaign such as the one we just had has to be shaken.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13590-2004Oct31.html

Coll seems to be saying that different crosstabs and breakdowns of the data don't match. He does not mention a problem with revisions or reweightings during the day.

[On the Road]

42. Look at This Discussion of Reweighting by a RWer

Still looking for a discussion of weighting methodology in exit polls. Here's another hint:

From The Folks Who Brought You President Kerry—The Smoking Hispanic-Share Exit Poll

"Having stayed up all election night, around dawn I noticed that the exit poll data had been quietly rejiggered to show Bush winning narrowly. By Wednesday evening, it had been fiddled with again to give Bush a bigger margin. This doesn't leave me with a lot of faith in the exit poll.

The big difficulty with an exit poll is coming up with a representative sample of polling places. Apparently, the NEP failed to do this.

Most of the exit poll data, as it currently stands, seems not too implausible. It shows Bush's share of the crucial white vote growing from 54 percent to 58 percent, which almost accounts for Bush's three point overall rise by itself. Among blacks, Bush's share grew from 9 to 11 percent, among Asians from 41 to 44 percent, and among American Indians and others from 40 to 41 percent—i.e. it’s trivial.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041107_election.htm

Sailer seems to be suggesting that geographic modeling takes the lead and that polling organizations try to back into demographics from the geography and maybe the poll sample. It's worth a look -- Sailer actually has some perceptive things to say on political strategy.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

50. I'll find the quote later today that supports the "sweep"

Yesterday somewhere on DU I read an article with a statement (possibly from the Waashington Post) in which the individual (AP?) stated they had to "adjust the exit polls to what was coming in" or something to that effect. I'm not kidding, and I wish I would have posted that statement in my post. Anyhway, it verfies that something was done to the final exit poll data to make it better "match" and it did not mention re-weighting. I'll try to find it later today.

Anyhow, it has been noted by many that the avg. sample for "non-critical" states was about 1200 voters. In Florida and Ohio we had about 2000 in the sample, which improves it's validity.

Remember, over the past 3 decades - Exit Polls are almost never wrong.

"The mistakes made during the 2000 election were unusual. During the 10 years before that VNS and the poll before it made only one mistake from 1990 to 1998. Before that, when the broadcast networks made their own projections, there were similarly very few mistakes during the 1970s and 1980s."

***

BTW, here's another election veteran/GOP supporter/GOP spin on the exit polls - none other than Dick Morris:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31590.htm

"...Why did the exit polls show such a Democratic win when the Republicans were ahead all along? Why did they bias the coverage in the favor of the Democrats when Bush was winning from the beginning?"

"...Exit polls are almost impossible to get wrong this way. They are based on interviews with voters as they leave the polling places having just cast their ballots. They don't reflect absentee, mail-in or early-voting ballots, of course — but these voters generally tend Republican. When you combine military votes with those of voters who are likely to travel and need absentee ballots, the bias is all pro-Republican."

"...It takes a deliberate act of fraud and bias to get an exit poll wrong. Since the variables of whether or not a person will actually vote are eliminated in exit polling, it is like peeking at the answer before taking the test."

"...But these exit polls were wrong. And the fact that they were so totally, disastrously wrong is a national scandal. There should be a national investigation to unearth the story behind the bias."

Take it from Dick - it takes fraud (and in this case the violation of the laws of mathematics) - to make sense of these results.

[On the Road]

54. If Your Weights Were Wrong to Begin With

Your original exit polls would be off, and to correct them it was necessary to "adjust the exit polls to what was coming in." The most likely reason is that turnout was heavy and unevenly distributed.

If you're averaging two polling locations which had an equal number of votes last election, your exit poll would originally assign those locations the same weight. If twice as many people show up at one location on election day, the exit polls will be wrong -- that location has to be given twice the weight of the other to adjust for the unexpected difference in turnout. One of the side effects will be an apparent shrinking of any group overrepresented in the smaller location.

This is what I think the pollsters did. I think people may see the phrase "adjusted the polls to what was coming in" and understand that to mean that they simply substituted the reported results for their observations. I believe those adjustments meant that the original numbers were modified based on changes in turnout.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

57. It was reported that the "weights" were changed during the day...

...but I think this article explains the post-midnight "adjustment," but it still does not refute the mathematical issue outlined in this post. (I added the info in parenthesis about time intervals)

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_polls_the_.html

"The Rutenberg piece is worth reading in full, but before doing so, consider again the different deliverables that NEP provided on Tuesday. First are the partial results reported in the middle of the afternoon and widely leaked on the Internet that showed Kerry doing a few points better in nearly every state poll than he did in the final result. (ie. noon and 2pm exit polls) Second are the numbers delivered for each state just before the polls closed, data that are typically weighted to match the day's actual turnout and that facilitate election projections. (ie. 4pm & 6pm is weighted for 'actual turn-out') Finally, NEP provides final data well after the polls close that they weight by the vote to match actual results. (ie. 1:01am & 1:41 am "sweep"?) These data are not used for projections but for analysis and subgroup comparisons, so weighting by the actual vote helps make the final poll more accurate."

****

Well, so Peter Jennings was right, the 3rd and 4th/final exit polls are "typically" been used to project/call the states elections, but not this time...because even a self-reported and angry Karl Rove "knew they were wrong."

BTW, you are really stretching the limits of credibility to suggest the exit polling methodology for 30 non-contested states was accurate, and that of the 18 "battleground" states, 7 of them had ststistically flawed exit polling methodology that was somehow random skewed/mis-weighted, and all of the skew went to Bush - and that's due to normal "weighting." Here's the facts:

Total number of 18 "battleground" states at the MOE or outside the MOE which deviated to Bush = 7

Total number of 18 "battleground" states at the MOE or outside the MOE which deviated to Kerry = 0

These are the Kerry exit poll and actual vote margins.

Exit Poll Actual BushGain
MO -8 -7 -1
CO -7 -6 -1
AZ -10 -10 0
MI 3 3 0
AR -9 -9 0
IL 11 11 0
LA -14 -15 1
IA 0 -1 1
NM 2 0 2
NV -1 -3 2
ME 11 8 3

WI 5 1 4
OH 2 -2 4
PA 7 2 5
FL 1 -5 6
MN 10 3 7
NC -4 -13 9
NH 17 1 16

So, the NEP pollers in these 6 states suddenly disgarded 30 years of mature exit polling methodology - and just as David Kay, former US weapons inspector in Iraq famously stated this year, "We were all wrong."

Here's something else to ponder:

Scoop: 47 State Exit Poll Analysis Confirms Swing Anomaly
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x38567

The graghs on post 11 & 14 show something remarkable...the skew is all in one direction, towards Bush. Could the exit polling data be off that much, for the first time in the histroy of exit polls?

Here's one more strange figure to ponder: CNN has listed on their website that that "National Exit Polls" included 13,660 exit polls voters.

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

Hmmm, I guess they are taking about a different national poll as we know at least 4800+ exit poll voters were included in Florida and Ohio alone. Actually, the total repoorted sample size of exit poll voters for last week was 73,680 (+/- those strange 1am 57 + 16 voters who swung OH and FL to Bush). Below is the data as taken from this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x38567

CRITICAL STATES 12

State,BUSH,KERRY,#Resp,Time,Red Shift,

Colorado,49.9,48.1,2515,12:24AM,2.60%,
Florida,49.8,49.7,2846,12:21,2.5,
*Florida,51.4,47.6,2862,1:01,0.6,
Michigan,46.5,51.5,2452,12:21,1,
Minnesota,44.5,53.5,2178,12:23,3,
Nebraska,62.5,36,785,12:22,4.3,
Nevada,47.9,49.2,2116,12:23,2.2,
New Hamp.,44.1,54.9,1849,12:24,21:36,
New Mex.,47.5,50.1,1951,12:24,19:12,
Ohio,47.9,52.1,1963,7:32PM,3.1,
*Ohio,50.9,48.6,2020,1:41AM,0.3,
Penn,45.4,54.1,1930,12:21,3.4,
Wisconsin,48.8,49.2,2223,12:21,(-)0.3,
Iowa,48.4,49.7,2502,12:23,2,

NON CRITICAL STATES 35

State,BUSH,KERRY,#Resp,Time,Red Shift

Alabama,58.1,40.5,730,12:17AM,4.2
Alaska,57.8,38.8,910,01:00AM,4
Arizona,52.8,46.7,1859,12:19,2.5
Arkansas,52.9,46.1,1402,12:22,1.1
Calif,46.6,54.6,1919,12:23,(-)1.5
CT,40.9,57.7,872,12:22,3.4
(CT,44.4,54.7,872,12:53),0.2
DC,8.2,89.8,795,12:22,0.3
Delaware,40.7,57.3,770,12:22,4.8
Georgia,56.6,42.9,1536,12:22,2.2
Hawaii,46.7,53.3,499,12:22,(-)1.2
Idaho,65.7,32.9,559,12:22,2.6
Illinois,42.4,56.6,1392,12:23,1.6
Indiana,58.4,40.6,926,12:22,1.6
Kansas,64.5,34.1,654,12:22,(-)2.7
Kentucky,58.4,40.2,1034,12:22,0.9
Louisiana,54.7,43.9,1669,12:21,2.1
Maine,44.3,53.8,1968,12:22,0.8
Maryland,42.3,56.2,1000,12:22,0.5
Mass,32.9,65.2,889,12:22,3.7
Miss,56.5,43,798,12:22,3.3
Missouri,52,47,2158,12:21,1.5
Montana,58,37.5,640,12:22,(-)0.3
ND,64.4,32.6,649,12:22,(-)2.4
OK,65,34.6,1539,12:23,0.8
Oregon,47.9,50.3,1064,12:22,(-)1.3
RI,34.9,62.7,809,12:22,3.4
SC,53.4,45.1,1735,12:24,4.4
SD,61,36.5,1495,12:24,(-)1.8
Tenn,58,40.6,1774,12:23,(-)1.7
Texas,62.2,36.3,1671,12:22,(-)2.0
Utah,68.1,29.1,798,12:22,2.5
Vermont,33.3,63.7,685,12:22,5.2
Wash,44,54.1,2123,12:38,1.6
WV,54,44.5,1722,12:24,1.8
Wyoming,65.5,30.9,684,12:22,2.7

State,BUSH,KERRY,#Resp,Time,Red Shift

NJ,46.2,52.8,1520,12:50,(-)0.2
NY,40.9,58.2,1452,12:52,(-)0.4
NC,56.5,42.7,2167,12:48,(-)0.4
Virginia,54.1,45.4,1431,12:56,(-)0.4


Well, what we have here are the results from the 50 states, in which three states submitted 2 sets of data that is unique. First, CT's "revised" data had the same sample size, but the percentages varied widely, and I have no idea why or how that could change. More importantly, both Florida and Ohio have this strange 2nd data set update just after 1am that was remarkedly different from the midnight data that was static from about 7pm till 1am. (basd on the final 6pm exit polls)

So, let's look specifically at the time stamp for any state that NEP submitted exit poll data after 1am: Well, only three states posted data after 1am, First was Alaska at 1:00am, but with only 1 data set, and given their geograghical position in a different time zone, this is expected and the results seem normal.

However, what is NOT expected, not normal, nor has it been explained is that of the 50 US states, only 2 of them submitted a 2nd/revised set of "final" exit poll data after 1am that had had been static for the past 6 hours - but now due to a very slight increase in the sample size, somehow showed with a significant shift in the overall data that defies the laws of mathematics.

According to your logic, it was some sort of "re-weighting" of the data due to heavy turn-out that created the final "reported" exit poll - but only in these two states in the eastern time zone. Nevermind is was these two that swung the election to Bush.

In an earlier post you stated:

<<The article on the Zogby site is more persuasive because the author can vouch for the historical record of exit polls and demonstrate that this election is an anomaly. That's all that can be done. The rest requires an investigation of the votes.>>

Well, I should note that based on the 4th/final real exit polls of 6pm-7pm, Zogby et al showed Kerry winning Florida and Ohio, and the election with 311 electoral votes. Interesting indeed.

As for an investigation of the votes? Their will be none. Republicans like Tom Delay blocked an admendment on the HAVA bill that would have required a paper audit trail on the e-Voting machine. Why? As some have suggested, perhaps the sooner the GOP completes their goal of totaling discrediting Exit Polls, the sooner we can make this whole process easier by just sending an email with our vote preference to either: Diebold, ES&S, SAIC, and Sequoia - in 2004 and thereafter. I'm sure they'll be happy to provide you with strategically targeted election results...

And now to complete our discourse, I shall bring up your "Dick Morris-esque" quote that seems to hint at a desperate attempt to explain these discrepenceies via "weighting" and even voter personalities...

<<<The reweighting and differential in response rates (Republicans not talking to pollsters) seem like legitimate points>>>

Really? Well, that is pure conjecture that has no basis in historical fact, or supporting empirical evidence in last week's "election." In fact, if that is "legitimate point," that would imply that the exit voters in the 6 swing states of: OH, FL, WI, PA, NC, and NH are manifestly and statistically more dishonest than the exit poll voters in the other 43 states. Hmmm, response rate variances based on exit poll honesty is a "legitimate point" to explain away the exit poll variance - but only in certain swing states? Only the GOP spinsters could dare present that "talking point" to their faith-based followers.

Sorry, but that my friend is absurd logic, and since you give some credence to such a claim - you almost sound like someone from the faith-based community trying to spin this fraud away with irrational conjecture... I hope I'm wrong, but nonetheless, I will end this discourse on that note.

Good luck to you, and may the laws of mathematics no longer apply to the known Universe! (or atleast to the United States elections).

[On the Road]

58. Please Drop the "Mathematical Impossibility" Argument

unless you can explain it better. It really doesn't help the conversation.

As far as I can tell, what you're missing is that the exit pollsters report the same sample size before and after reweighting. Subgroups may be presented as raw counts, but they're really adjusted counts which can go up or down as weightings change. Your argument is only true if the subgroups are raw counts rather than weighted and adjusted numbers.

For example, the pollsters may poll five thousand people and show twenty-eight hundred women in the earlier exit polls. However, if they discover that women have been oversampled, the number may drop to twenty-six hundred after reweighting. That later number represents the number of women who WOULD have been part of the sample if the sampling had been representative. They're not eliminating two hundred subjects -- it's just that the raw number is being weighted down. This is necessary to make sure the people polled represent the population who voted. If there's more to your argument, I'm missing it.

Now, lest you think I'm a freeper, I don't trust the results of the election at all. In fact, I think that the exit polls can provide clues on where fraud may have been committed. That's where the effort should be concentrated. But as far as I can tell, the exit pollsters were correctly handling the data, even if the data itself was suspect.

Your numbers show that OH and FL are outliers and have abnormal late adjustments. Those adjustments were heavily influenced by official turnout. Some of the official turnout numbers are very strange -- extremely high for some Republican precincts and extremely low for some Democratic ones. In particular, it's difficult to believe that any polling place experienced 7% turnout. In the case of that polling place, either the reported numbers are wrong or fraud took place.

Let's say for a minute that Democratic votes were destroyed in some locations and spurious Republican votes were added in others. Because official turnout is used for reweighting, this kind of fraud would cause the exit polls to be adjusted and match the official vote count more closely.

In other words, the exit polls perpetuate any incorrect turnout information. What needs to be established is whether the official turnout numbers are accurate.

[bleever]

11. Very important post; also see 250 Million to One for B*'s odds

of beating all the exit polls the way he supposedly did.

[AgadorSparticus]

12. wow. excellent work. even i understood it. double kicked and nominated.

:toast:

[futurecitizen]

13. I contacted the exit poll company to find out how much it would cost..

to purchase the exit poll data by precinct. Below is a copy of our correspondence. I'd like to know what the hell is going on here. 6-9 months seems absolutely ridiculous. Anyone have the raw data handy?


--
From: Future Citizen
To: Liz Doyle

Hi Liz,

How much does it cost to purchase the exit polls for Ohio and Florida,
by county?

Thanks in advance,

FC



-------------------

From: "Liz Doyle" <[e-mail]>
To: "Future Citizen" <Future Citizen>

There is no county data provided by the exit polls only the sampled
precincts.




-------------------

From: Future Citizen
To: Liz Doyle

Okay,

How much does it cost to purchase the exit polls for the sampled precincts in Ohio and Florida?

FC


-------------------

From: "Liz Doyle" <[e-mail]>
To: "Future Citizen" <Future Citizen>


This is not a possible subscription - all data files will be turned over to the Roper Center for Public Opinion once they are databased and sourced.



-------------------
From: Future Citizen
To: Liz Doyle


Liz,

What I want to find out is, how do I buy what data is available in Florida and Ohio? I realize that you're probably extraordinarily busy, but if you give me the information I need (which is basically how I get that data) I can post it online to the groups of people who are possibly *also* contacting you and save you some headaches.

So:

1. what are the possible subscriptions and prices and
2. when will the files be databased and sourced?

I'm checking out The Roper Center for Public Opinion.

Thanks in advance,

Future Citizen



-------------------
From: "Liz Doyle" <[e-mail]>
To: "Future Citizen" <Future Citizen>

Future Citizen - this information will not be available for 6-9 months.

[Carolab]

46. Send it to Olbermann

David Dill was on from Verified Voting saying he wonders why they won't release their exit poll data.

Get them to ask Liz why it should take 6-9 months. Seems like a purely arbitrary response to me, and completely unexplained.

PUSH IT.

[Verve]

75. We all know why they won't release the exit polls. They Fudged them!!!

Now the question is did they alter the exit polls to save themselves or were they asked to by KKKarl?

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

15. Discrediting exit polls and scaring media from calling states "too early"

Since at least 2000, Reps have been bad-mouthing exit polls in the media. They have partially succeeded because the media repeatedly apologizes for exit polls' "inaccuracy." Until about 2000, exit polls were considered extremely reliable (even Fox analyst Dick Morris swears by exit polls to this day) because they were based on people who had just cast votes. They are considered reliable enough to detect fraud in other countries.

After the media "blew" its call on Florida in 2000 by "prematurely" and "inaccurately" awarding the state to Gore, the entire media committed to wait much longer and be much more cautious in 2004. If they had called Florida early on Nov 2, 2004, they would have declared Kerry the winner. Instead, they waited, ignored the clear exit poll data, and "avoided" making the "wrong" call. Instead, they were able to make the "right" call after receiving "solid" numbers. (They even somehow managed to muddle together official vote tallies with exit poll data to cover up how large the discrepancy was between official vote tallies and exit poll numbers. Had no one received the early exit poll data, we likely would not be discussing the possibility of election fraud right now.)

In 2004, the Reps attempted to make it harder for exit pollers to conduct exit polls. They also helped nudge the media to consolidate their exit polling so they would need to discredit just one set of "faulty" numbers. (After making exit polling somewhat harder to carry out in certain places, the Reps are now using this self-created reality to "explain" polls' "failure.")

Today, we learned that the GOP is trying to stop the media from carrying out any exit polls at all in the future. It's easier to steal elections when no one's keeping you honest.

If someone in the GOP is rigging elections and deciding on Election Day how many votes they need to steal, they would want to loosen the media up by first discrediting exit polling and slowing down the media from calling states on Election Day until they had added in their fraudulent votes. After several election cycles, the fraudulent votes would have repeatedly "discredited" the exit polls sufficiently that they could then push the media to eliminate all exit polling. They could blame it on, as they have tried to, a left-wing conspiracy to leak pro-Democratic poll numbers that supposedly (but completely falsely, according to historical data) encourage Dems to turn up in larger numbers and discourage Reps from going to the polls. (This is a real tinfoil hat conspiracy theory!)

You must hand it to whoever's driving the GOP "Get Out The (Fake) Vote" campaign. They've got a brilliant long-term plan, these Machiavellian fucks.

[high density]

18. Thanks for doing this

I watched those Ohio exit poll numbers update right before my eyes on the CNN website and I knew that there had to be something fishy going on.

[cthrumatrix]

20. Of course it's fraud it's blatant and the media closes their eyes

[RevCheesehead]

23. An awesome expose on "Faith-based Re-Media Math"

THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK!

[kimchi]

26. Thank you for the Math for Dummies explanation.

It is the first time this left-hander has understood any of these numbers! (And your writing is quite good also.)

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

28. Welcome, Copernicus

Interesting choices of threads to post in throughout the day. We don't want you to be upset, so do look for the many threads that wish to discuss 'moving on'. This isn't one of them. Neither are any of the other sixth you've chosen today. You're upsetting yourself needlessly.

:hi: Welcome!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[intelle]

30. There is going to be a recount in NH --

Nader has called for a recount in NH...even though Kerry won, there is evidence that Bush got more votes than he was supposed to.

What we are after is the truth...and if this means that both parties are exposed, then so be it.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[George_S]

34. You're right...

... the Republicans, if they cared about democracy and really loved our country, would be calling loud for this to be resolved. After all, this is why are troops are fighting and dying in Iraq: for a fair vote.

[MarkusQ]

70. Some of us are

the Republicans, if they cared about democracy and really loved our country, would be calling loud for this to be resolved

Some of us are. Heck, a lot of us are. This issue is much bigger than party politics. The only reason I can see for anyone, red, blue, green or whatever, to reasonably object to making sure the vote is counted fairly is if they either cheated or suspect that their side cheated and value winning above integrity.

-- MarkusQ

[SmallFatCat]

31. hmmm..

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck. It's a duck.

BTW, I think the "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth" was uttered by Sherlock Holmes first.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

35. Yes, it smells like a dead fish left out in the sun for a week...

Thanks for the tip on the quote, I just remember that utterance by Spock, but it does indeed sound like Sherlock Holmes as well.

[George_S]

33. Is it "intelelctually dishonest" to commit fraud?

No, it's criminal! Well, it's "intelelctually dishonest" too.

We'll see when all is said and done.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

36. Correction: These are "High Crimes and Treason" against the People

FWIW, I think our friend is somehow confusing the Laws of Mathematics with "conspiracy theory." Not worthy of a response other than to reiterate:

"Like Iraq, blind faith and spin are their friends, while reality and science are their foes. To each his own, but I'll choose reality every time."

[CAcyclist]

38. Enron was a CT,too, until it wasn't

As a Californian, I well remember how everyone outside our state were calling us conspiracy theorists when we were calling for an investigation into Enron's massive overbilling and the electrical power plants taken off line/power disruptions and shortages.

Sometimes conspiracy theories really are conspiracies.

[lamp_shade]

37. kick...

[Digit]

40. Another kick for good measure...

[shelley806]

43. I cannot thank you enough for your wonderful statistical analysis.

You are a true Patriot. Reality bites in mathematical proof, that not only this administration has lied to us once again in the most egregious manner possible for a democracy (for robbing people of their vote is denying them their will, and what is the difference between that and a sort of tyranny) but that the media, our 'free press' aided and abetted them. When CNN changed the exit polls, those of us that witnessed it captured online, experienced a collective chill. For you to be able to spell it out in black and white with known mathematical laws of the universe makes it so much more bearable. Thank you so very much for your effort and truth.


"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to slavery."

Thomas Paine

[DELUSIONAL]

44. kick

[KitSileya]

45. I'm sure you've already explained this,

but even tho' your explanation was much easier to understand for those of us with no mathematic abilities, I still failed to grasp one thing.

You compare the two exit polls, and show admirably well how with the increase in asked voters, it would be impossible to decrease Kerry's voters. I just wondered, of your 1963 voters and your 2020, are those initial 1963 voters part of the 2020, or are the 2020 new samples? I mean, did they ask 1963 voters who they voted for before midnight, and then ask 57 new voters, who voted after midnight and add their results to the old one? Or did they ask 2020 new voters after midnight and present their result at 1am?

I'm sure I'm not making any sense with this, but blame it on the fact that I'm lousy with maths.

[ahimsa]

47. I was wondering the same thing

And you expressed it in a perfectly sensible way. I would think they would use a completely new sample for each polling cycle.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

48. The sample of voters is cumulative throughout the day..

...In otherwords, the pollsters survey exit voters from around 7am to 6-7pm, and add their data to the sample throughout the day. At noon their sample size was much smaller (thus unreliable), but by 4pm to 6/7pm (3rd and 4th exit polls) they have a large enough sample to accurately predict the election - typically within 1% point or less. That has been the case throuhgout the 1980s and 1990s until...FLorida 2000.

In fact, Peter Jennings on ABC stated last Friday that the "networks traditionally do not call a state until the 3rd exit polls are completed". Why not this time? Well, Florida 2000 and the shennanigans that took place. Of course the GOP did not want the networks to call Florida and Ohio last week after the 3rd or the 4th/final exit polls as the state was obviously going to be a Kerry victory. Someone intervened at 1am to "revise" the data so the public would not ask questions. The problem is that some of us recorded the results, and the "revised" figures violate the laws of mathematics.

I hope this post answers your question about the aggregated sample that is used in exit polling.

[ahimsa]

49. Yes, thank you

Sure will be interesting to hear how they try to explain it! Nice work catching that!

[KitSileya]

52. OK. Thank you for the explanation.

Your answer helped clarify things for my foggy brain. And as for revising of the polls, why am I not surprised? I have come to the realization that there is very little this administration wouldn't do to gain and keep power.

[JawJaw]

51. Maybe the motto for election04 will be...

http://www.nirvani.net/misc/$87,000,000,000/dubya.jpg

"It's the Math, Stupid!"

[HEAVYHEART]

53. I almost threw up looking at the chimp's picture

I was just getting ready to eat breakfast but I've changed my mind. :puke:

[JawJaw]

56. It did cross my mind that that might happen....

sincere apologies to any DU'ers similarly deprived of their morning munchies.

[Carl Brennan]

55. As Randi Rhodes would say:

"It's a miracle".

One must always consider Divine Intervention as a possibility. }(

[democrat_patriot]

59. Kicked!!

Does our subservient media think their treasonous acts against The American People will go unnoticed? Not for this Patriot.



"Not for this patriot"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tommcintyre]

60. kick

[bleever]

61. Kick! This is now the argument made by globalresearch. n/t

[Petrodollar Warfare]

62. Can you elaborate on the global research link?

Thanks!

For those who did not see the earlier link, "How to Hack a US Election for Dummies" - the methodology can be found here:


How to Hack the Vote: the Short Version
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm
11/13/2004
Chuck Herrin, CISSP, CISA, MCSE, CEH

[NewYorkerfromMass]

63. Here's the DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x52803

[Petrodollar Warfare]

66. Thanks, I'm glad that the rules of mathematics work in Canada...

...even though they no longer work here in our "faith-based" election.

BTW, despite another poster's remarks, I have confimed the NEP did weigh "voter turnout" in the 4pm and 6pm exit polling data(the final two "real" exit polls). This is common practice as the pollsters have 8-10 hours of voter turn-out data at the end of Election day, and it was done to the final data sets on Nov 2nd, just as it has been done historically for three decades in an effort to help networks "call" a state. Obviosuly this was not done, but my question is who authorized the 1AM "adjustments."

To recap, the 1:01 and 1:41 AM "adjustments" were an attempt to match the machine count/vote tabulation against the legitimate exit poll data that had been weighted for turn-out - but - they had to break the laws of mathematics to show Bush ahead in OH and FL.

Dr. Steven Freeman's analysis shows - the exit polling data was correct within a 99% confidence level, but the odds of Kerry lossing OH, FL and winning PA by the Network's "final/adjusted" numbers is 250 million to 1. If you add in the bizarre data from NH, NC and NM, the odds are hundreds of billions to 1. In otherwords, in order to believe that Bush won, you have to beleive the impossible. Welcome to Orwell's world where up to down, right is wrong, and the laws of mathematics have been rendered "quaint."

####

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111404A.shtml

Editor's Note | How could the exit polls in this year's presidential election have diverged so drastically from the results that election officials and the media announced?

Professor Steven Freeman, a statistician at the University of Pennsylvania, offers a disturbing answer. Looking at the exit polls and announced results in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, he concludes that the odds against such an accidental discrepancy in all three states together was 250 million to one.

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

Read Dr. Freeman's well-reasoned, well-written argument, and make up your own mind. -- sw

The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy
By Steven F. Freeman
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf

[bleever]

67. And by the way, PW, when they "modified" the exit polls to

include votes already cast, how come they still show questionnaire data for all respondents??:wtf:

[Bozos for Bush]

64. Rock-solid analysis - wtg Petrodollar!

This analysis proves exactly what Petro states - exit polls were manipulated in both Ohio and Florida. Heads need to roll at CNN.

"Why" they were intentionally manipulated cannot be proven by us in cyberspace, however everyone knows the answer...to help cover up the fraud that took place.

We all have local newspapers. In my opinion, perhaps it's time we group together and visit them, show them the evidence, etc. We should schedule a DU-wide day where everyone involved in this research takes the day off, gather together in groups around the country, and go together to as many newspaper offices as possible with evidence in hand.

John
Southern Cal
Volunteer for LA Times

[restorefreedom]

65. Sadly, we have entered the Orwellian universe....

imo.

But I'll kick this. My mind is still willing to wrap around the truth.

My programming hasn't been completed yet.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell

[bleever]

68. Kick!

[renate]

69. have you sent this stuff to Keith Olbermann? n/t

[Petrodollar Warfare]

71. No, but I suppose he could be forwarded this link.

I have written a more "refined" essay that articulates this issue, but not sure what to do with it. If someone can get it published elsewhere, just send me an email and I'll send this as a Word Doc.

[tommcintyre]

72. kick

[renate]

77. can you send Olbermann your new version?

I already sent him the link to the Canadian analysis--getting a similar set of data from a different person might stand out a little bit more than if I wrote to him again. Although, what the heck, I will. But please do still go ahead and write to him too, since I'm sure he'd rather hear what you have to say directly from you than from me.
[e-mail]

[lawladyprof]

73. Forgive my ignorance but

Did they just add like the 57 more people to the original sample? Or get an entirely new 2020 people? Also, where did they get these people at that time of night? So when were the polls actually done?

[Petrodollar Warfare]

74. Please see post 45, 47 & 48 for an explanation

....but to be succinct, the exit polling sample is cumulative throughout the day (ie. from 8am to 6pm they got exit polls surveys from 1963 voters).

As for the 57 people who were added after 1AM...well, let's just say that in order to believe they could change the results of the poll as reflected in the data, we have to live in Orwell's world where up is down, right is wrong, WMD stockpiles are invisible, and mathematics is simply discarded to that pesky "reality-based community." Using Orwell's phraseology:

"All votes are equal, but SOME votes are MORE equal than others."

Indeed, CNN and other major Networks want you to believe the votes of those 57 people defy the universal laws of mathematics, and they counted very POWERFULLY in Bush's favor...obviously those 1AM votes wereMORE EQUAL than the votes of the other 1963 exit poll voters....

[Pooka Fey]

76. Thanks for doing this. Kick.