11/8/2004

Odds of Bush gaining by 4 percent in all exit polling states 1 in 50,000; Evoting/paper variance not found to be significant

Filed under: — site admin @ 3:07 pm Email This

By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

A statistical analysis of exit polling conducted for RAW STORY by a former MIT mathematics professor has found the odds of Bush making an average gain of 4.15 percent among all 16 states included in the media’s 4 p.m. exit polling is 1 in 50,000, or .002 percent.

The analysis, conducted by former Associate Professor of Mathematics David Anick, also ruled out any significance of a variance between electronic balloting and paper ballot states, which RAW STORY reported last week.

In fact, the non-electronic voting states of New York and New Hampshire had higher gains for President Bush than states in the exit polls using some electronic balloting: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada and West Virginia.

Moreover, 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.

In part, the discrepancy in the site’s earlier reporting came from the fact that New Hampshire and New York were not included in the reported 6 p.m. polling. Both states had the greatest “Bush gains,” by 8.7 and 8.6 percent respectively, and both use non-electronic balloting. The full breakdown of states by electronic and paper balloting can be found here.

Many of the states, however, including crucial swing states like Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire use optical scan technology which “counts” the paper ballots. Since these systems use Windows machines and a simple database (many of which are connected by modems to a central tabulator), these states are subject to hacking as well.

The site chose to use the 4 p.m. exit polling because it polled the largest number of states, which would provide a larger sample. The National Election Pool refuses to release any of their exit polling on any other states, or to break it down by county, without being paid.

On average, Bush made a gain of 4.15 percent when the reported vote was tallied in all sixteen states included in the reported 4 p.m. exit polling conducted by the National Election Pool.

The gain was calculated by taking the difference between Kerry and Bush in the exit poll and comparing it with the difference between Kerry and Bush in the reported vote.

Anick reasons that there are four possible causes of the “Bush gains.” (1) Significantly greater lying or refusal to speak to pollsters in Bush voters versus Kerry voters; (2) Consistent/systematic errors in weighting demographic groups; (3) A surge of Bush voters after 4 p.m., in all states; (4) Systematic tampering/hacking of reported vote totals, in Bush’s favor.

One reason suggested for the anomaly system-wide was that women were oversampled in the exit polling; women favored Kerry by a slight margin. For this to be true, women would have had to have been significantly oversampled in all 16 states. The largest oversampling seen in any state was 54-46 women-men, in one Florida exit poll. That poll suggested a Kerry victory in the state 51-49 percent.

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.

The Pool conducts exit polling paid for by the Associated Press and five television networks, which is used in part for calling winners.

Besides New Hampshire and New York, Bush also made sizable gains in Florida, 7.0 percent, Pennsylvania, 4.8 percent, and Colorado, 4.6 percent.

Exit polling is used in many foreign countries to determine the legitimacy of the reported results; some note that in the American situation, however, the variance is not of the size at which foreign observers would question an election.

RAW STORY and Dr. Anick have called for the release of the full exit polling for all states by county. No real conclusion can be drawn without all the data, and county by county exit polling would be the best means for examining

  claims of fraud.

The National Election Pool’s spokesman, at CBS News, has not returned repeated calls for comment.

  Exit Polling Reported Vote
State Kerry Bush Diff. Kerry Bush Diff. Bush Gain
AR 45 54 -9 45 54 -9.8 0.8
CO 49 50 -1 47 52 -5.6 4.6
FL 51 49 2 47 52 -5.0 7.0
IA 50 49 1 49 50 -0.9 1.9
MI 52 46 6 51 48 3.4 2.6
MN 52 46 6 51 48 3.5 2.5
MO 47 52 -5 46 53 -7.3 2.3
NH 54 44 10 50 49 1.4 8.6
NJ 54 44 10 53 46 6.2 3.8
NM 50 48 2 49 50 -1.1 3.1
NV 49 48 1 48 50 -2.6 3.6
NY 62 36 26 58 40 17.3 8.7
OH 51 49 2 49 51 -2.5 4.5
PA 53 46 7 51 49 2.2 4.8
WI 51 48 3 50 49 0.4 2.6
WV 45 54 -9 43 56 -13.0 4.0

Correction: An earlier iteration of this article stated that New York used paper ballots. This is not correct. While the thrust of the statement remains the same (New York does not use any electronic voting), and none of the points of the article change, New York in fact uses lever-based voting machines, not paper ballots.

106 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.bluelemur.com/wp-trackback.php/405

  1. Wait a second…didn’t New Hampshire use electronic machines???

    RAW STORY’s original report that New Hampshire used electronic voting machines was erroneous. New Hampshire uses optical scan technology, which in some sense is an electronic voting machine, but they use paper ballots as the source of their voting. There was some confusion between the optical scan and electronic voting machines as constituting “electronic voting.”

    Comment by Peter — 11/8/2004 @ 3:44 pm

  2. This only seems to suggest that the exit poll sampling methodology is flawed. When it looked like the big Bush gains were exclusively in Evoting states the idea that the actual vote counts were somehow flawed seemed plausible, but if Bush got a boost everywhere, how could the problem lie anywhere but in the exit polls?

    Comment by Geoffrey Fojtasek — 11/8/2004 @ 3:48 pm


  3. Only plausible explanation: “It was a miracle.”

    Comment by Neil — 11/8/2004 @ 3:52 pm

  4. Yes, I believe New Hampshire used evoting too. This study needs to be revised.

    Editor’s Note: Did you vote in New Hampshire with an evoting machine? Unless it’s a clandestine program, that’s not what’s been reported. Here are the states that use evoting:

    http://www.thestandard.com/movabletype/datadigest/archives/000499.php

    Comment by glenhappyt — 11/8/2004 @ 4:06 pm

  5. The exit polling was correct. The problem is the number of votes reported to the network’s pool.

    CNN and AP MODIFIED THEIR exit polling results to match the actual reported numbers.

    About 200.000 votes, so far, are involved in “computer glitches” around the nation but the media, including this outlet, refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of massive errors or manipulation of results during the election night.

    I have been told that the reason is:

    a) We Americans don’t do that (Kennedy vs Nixon - 1960)

    b) We Americans don’t do that (Watergate)

    c) We Americans don’t do that (Florida 2000)

    d) We Americans are better than that (WMDs in Iraq)

    In other words denial and, BTW, the DNC is not even reading the reports about technical problems and vote counting.

    That is what I would call a “healthy” democracy.

    Regards.

    Editor’s Note: ‘This outlet’ has been at the vanguard of reporting voting irregularities. To our knowledge, there are no ‘200,000 votes’ involved in computer glitches, though we would be certainly publicize this if such reports exist.

    Comment by Raul Vergara — 11/8/2004 @ 4:18 pm

  6. There are indications within FL by-county results that the use of the central tabulator for optical scan ballots was the crucial element for unusually high Bush ‘turnout’. Almost as if voted were switched between the candidates from the central database…

    Comment by AC — 11/8/2004 @ 4:22 pm

  7. That’s the whole reason Nader is requesting a recount in New Hampshire.

    Comment by Peter — 11/8/2004 @ 4:26 pm

  8. From his site:
    http://votenader.com/media_press/index.php?cid=400

    Comment by Peter — 11/8/2004 @ 4:26 pm

  9. Oh, ok. So you aren’t including optical scan machines? They are critical! Unless we get a recount, the results from them should be considered “electronic.” There is clear strange-ness from the optical machines.

    Editor’s Note: I will add this to the article; the variation between optical scan states and normal states is also not statistically significant – it comes back to the fact that New York showed the highest variance, and also that nearly all of the states are on electronic and optical voting, which means that there’s no comparative sample.

    What everyone should do is call the National Election Pool, the AP and CNN and demand they release exit polls by county. That’s the only way we can come to any conclusive answer.

    Comment by Peter — 11/8/2004 @ 4:28 pm

  10. Interesting that this report - http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~adamsb6/elections/ - specifically fingers the optical scanners in Florida.

    Also intersting in Florida is that, as of this writing, there are 138,567 MORE votes for President than people who turned out to vote. One might expect FEWER because some people might not vote for President, but MORE? I’m sure some smart guy somewhere has a statistical explanation for this, but it don’t make no sense to me.

    See for yourself by perusing Florida’s elections website at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/

    Comment by Rob in the PacNW — 11/8/2004 @ 4:28 pm

  11. That’s a very confusing chart… It took me a second to realize the negative numbers in the Bush column accutally indicated the size of Bush’s lead. Rather counterintuitive…

    Comment by Josh Catone — 11/8/2004 @ 4:31 pm

  12. Those saying this only shows polling problems are missing the big picture - that polling was near flawless in places NOT using e-voting. So, it means either people who vote with evoting machines lie to pollsters, or that the evoting machines are farking up.

    Comment by w@ntonSoup — 11/8/2004 @ 4:39 pm

  13. Since possible fraud is the issue, the focus should be on contested states only. Why cheat in a state that’s so strong for one candidate that it wouldn’t be contested? Can the calculations be redone with the uncontested ones removed? I think that would mean dropping at least NY, NJ, and WV.

    Comment by Jerry — 11/8/2004 @ 4:44 pm

  14. Exit polling has been considered accurate enough to determine outcomes in many years; why is it suddenly not so in the last 2 elections, and always in the Republicans’ favor? Do the electronic scanners in those states produce a receipt that voters can see? Is it recountable?

    Comment by Dianne Foster — 11/8/2004 @ 4:46 pm

  15. Electronic Touch Screen “electronic voting” does not leave a paper trail.
    Optical Scanners do.

    Both were used.

    Comment by Peter — 11/8/2004 @ 4:54 pm

  16. Focusing on contested states is a great idea. Except: Bush’s spinners have jumped on the “mandate” bandwagon – aka the popular vote. Bush’s first four years were tainted by having “won” the electoral vote but not the popular vote. If there was fraud done, while it may have been more elaborate in the contested states, it would have to be done on a national level to account for the popular vote difference.

    Comment by Crystal — 11/8/2004 @ 5:06 pm

  17. The reason to cheat in states that are already strong for one candidate is to create a large margin of victory in the national popular vote. With a large margin, fewer people are willing to consider the possibility that the election was won through fraud.

    Comment by Shannon — 11/8/2004 @ 5:12 pm

  18. **** Check this out, doubters

    http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/ is Florida’s official website. It reports that Bush & Kerry combined for 7,527,130 votes. (Other candidates got roughly 50,000 votes total)

    Under ‘County Reporting’, they list voter turnout as 7,446,659

    My math says that’s 130,000 missing votes at the county level.

    Comment by w@ntonSoup — 11/8/2004 @ 5:15 pm

  19. Rob in the PacNW:

    I just looked at the numbers myself! You are right!
    I wonder if all the EXTRAS were cast for Bush! I wouldnt be surprised.

    I also had an experience that was disturbing in retrospect.

    Voted on the PAPERLESS touch screen machine. I then hit ‘review ballot’ …. couldnt see the “VOTE” button on the screen (obviously I wasnt instructed on the machine).. so I hit “back".. when my ballot came up.. Betty Castor had been replaced by Mel Martinez ( who I wouldnt spit on) .. so I thanked God and corrected it. I assumed it was my mistake.

    then I heard from a poll watcher that the exact same thing happened to some other voters… but it was for George Bush!

    Comment by trish — 11/8/2004 @ 5:16 pm

  20. The fact that the difference in NY is the same or larger than in the contested states seems to suggest that there is more of a problem with the pollsters than the machines. How many of you out there have ever even been polled? Heck even before the election there were problems with the polls! Supposedly Zogby broght Kerry even with Bush by assuming that 90% of the independents would swing Kerry’s way! Then, add to that the counties in Florida that are in question have historically voted for Republican presidents even though they have more Democrats than Republicans registered!

    No, I do not believe there is any conspiracy here at all.

    Comment by Bill — 11/8/2004 @ 5:18 pm

  21. interesting.. now the fla election website is reporting another 200,000 people who voted. how quickly they jumped on that!

    what is especially disturbing to me is that the initial posts ended on Nov 4th! It is evident that there have been MANY counties updating their numbers TODAY! I wonder if it was only AFTER the discrepancies were reported!!!! Why would there be no updates on Friday? do the election supervisors take the day off???

    I SMELL A RAT.. and its named W

    Comment by trish — 11/8/2004 @ 5:32 pm

  22. There probably was very little exit polling in NY. It’s a blue state.

    Comment by Peter — 11/8/2004 @ 5:40 pm

  23. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/florida.html

    Good reading regarding the press that won’t cover election fraud.

    Comment by tampamom — 11/8/2004 @ 5:56 pm

  24. Please note that Nev Harris, chief of Black Box Voting, which is the independent organization investigating the alleged nationwide voter fraud of Nov. 2, today revealed the following troubling news:

    Bev Harris:
    I was tipped off by a person very high up in TV that the news has been locked down tight, and there will be no TV coverage of the real problems with voting on Nov. 2. Even the journalists are pretty horrified. My source said they’ve also been forbidden to talk about it even on their own time, and he was calling from somewhere else. He was trying to figure out how to get the real news out on vote fraud.
    This is a person I’ve worked with off and on for nearly two years, and the voice was so somber it really bothered me.
    At any rate – and perhaps, especially important due to the tip-off above, there are things you can do to take back America.
    ====================
    We have a different list for lawyers, computer people, and statisticians. But if you are a regular person like most of us, and want to help, here’s what to do.
    SEE BLACKBOXVOTING.ORG FOR THE DETAILS.

    Comment by Mike Pilger — 11/8/2004 @ 6:05 pm

  25. Regarding this statement:

    What everyone should do is call the National Election Pool, the AP and CNN and demand they release exit polls by county. That’s the only way we can come to any conclusive answer.

    I just called these guys:

    http://www.exit-poll.net/

    and the guy said there that the exit poll information county-by-county is available for sale.

    He asked me if wanted to buy it.

    Comment by baobei — 11/8/2004 @ 6:34 pm

  26. So what are we supposed to believe? That despite the fact that there is this odd discrepency in the numbers, that there were no places where these odd ‘glitches’ favored Kerry, depsite the people who have come foreward, that we are just going to believe that nothing happened? With so many places revising their numbers after the fact to fall in line with the perception they’ve been given, isn’t there still enough wierdness to launch some sort of investigation, some line of official questioning? C’mon, this is the party whos president refused to go on public record with his testimony about the greatest tragedy ever in the modern history of America, so we’re just supposed to believe that there wasn’t any sort of shenanigans? I can not accept that!

    Comment by Michael — 11/8/2004 @ 6:44 pm

  27. Links to voting machines “overregistering” votes in election night:

    1. “Countinghouse Blues” - WOWT 6 (TV Station’s website) Omaha.

    * 10.000 votes “glitch”

    2. “Florida Happens - even in North Carolina” - “The Daily News", Local newspaper.

    * 4.500 votes “glitch”

    3. “Wallacy County Election Figures Corrected” - “The Brownsville Herald” (TX)

    * 2.900 votes “glitch”

    4. “Three Council of State races remain undecided” - WRAL.COM - NC

    * 17.000 to 31.000 votes “glitch”

    5. “6.900 ballots - out of 26.000 mostly early votes - did not register choice for president” - “Times Record News” - local newspaper - Wichita County (TX)

    * 6.900 votes “glitch”

    6. “Election Problems due to a software “glitch” - “The New Bern Sun Journal” - local newspaper - Craven County (NC)

    * 11.283 votes “glitch”

    7. “Ammendment 4 Broward County (FL) - machines do not count votes properly - They stop at 32.000

    * 80.000 - 88.000 votes “glitch”

    8. “3.893 extra votes for Bush” - AP, CNN - Gahanna Precinct -Franklin County (OH)

    * 3.893 votes “glitch”

    9. “Democrat’s Leader Decries Voting Glitches” - VINDY.COM - Mercer County (PA)

    * 4.000 votes “glitch”

    10. “Early Voting Site didn’t count 13.200 ballots” - FOX5 News - Las Vegas TV station - Volussia County (FL)

    * 13.200 votes “glitch”

    * More numbers as soon as I find them.

    Comment by Raul Vergara — 11/8/2004 @ 6:52 pm

  28. Generally a recount is only done when the vote margin is 1/4% or less, unless the requestor is willing to pony up the dough. So, in the case of optical scan/e-count, if the fixes cause a marging greater than 1/4%, there would be no automatic state-funded recount. So, the agents of the hypothesised fraud would make sure that the election margin was greater than 1% in the swing states, by cracking the county machines. And if the majority vote in a state were delivered via non-paper balloting, even if the op-scan/e-count system were adjusted, the fraud would ultimately be successful. A better test is a comparison of true paper ballot counts vs. exit polling, and compare that to the exit polling error vs. paperless ballot voting, at the county level.

    There may be some bias toward Kerry in the exit polling, but I am really uncomfortable about the Diebold systems, and my confidence in our election system is shaken. I really could accept the Bush victory. I am not a conspiracy buff. But the evidence I have seen in the last 48 hours indicates a real possibility that the election was stolen.

    Comment by Claire — 11/8/2004 @ 6:57 pm

  29. The only thing giving me hope right now is the possiblity of voter fraud via hacking. Perhaps I’m in denial that Bush won, and I am clinging to this scenario as a means of not accepting reality. But, seriously - HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS GUY WIN? C’mon people tell me they cheated.

    Comment by Jennifer — 11/8/2004 @ 7:02 pm

  30. MINOR ERROR IN TABLE – CORRECTION BY DAVID ANICK PHD –

    The above table lists the reported vote for WI as 48% Kerry and 49% Bush. An error on my part, later corrected, but not in the version that made it into this article. Correct data for reported votes in WI are: Kerry - 49.76%; Bush - 49.36%. The Difference, +0.4%, is listed correctly, as is the “Bush Gain” figure of 2.6%. None of the assertions or conclusions of the article are affected.

    Comment by David Anick (PhD MD) — 11/8/2004 @ 7:06 pm

  31. What ever happend to the absentee ballots? Since they take up to (I believe) 3 weeks to count, how can we possibly know who won? And considering that hundreds of thousands of us, including myself, voted absentee out of suspicion of electronic voting machines, why aren’t we hearing about those counts?

    Comment by Jon — 11/8/2004 @ 7:09 pm

  32. Forida Vote
    Presidential Total : 7588422
    Turn Out 6/11 : 7426700
    Turn Out 8/11 Morning : 7522491
    Turn Out Now : 7622037

    Dif: -161722; -65931; 33615

    More of 95% of counties with more votes for president then turn out use the DRE touch screen system.

    PS - For the Senate race Friday existed in some counties 135000 more senate votes that turn out enough to change the result.

    Comment by Iureldas — 11/8/2004 @ 7:34 pm

  33. More Numbers:

    “Computer Glitch still baffles County Clerk” - “Michigan City News Dispatch Online” - LaPorte County (MI)

    The precincts of the area only registered/accepted/counted 22.200 votes the night of the elction. The first reports showed only 300 registered voters in those precincts. The truth is that in the area they have 79.000 registered voters!

    County Clerk requested a “patch” to the Chicago machine vendor to “fix” problem. Patch doesn’t work. Unknown outcome through today.

    * 30.000 - 40.000 votes “glitch”

    The editor (s) of this outlet requested detailed information to back-up my claim of about 200.000 votes involved in computer glitches.

    It’s done.

    Concerning the changing Florida numbers…well, I am sure that many of Kerry’s “10.000 lawyers army/the best of the best” are witnessing at least part of the process…(sigh)

    In a final sad/ironic note, Rove attacked the exit polls election day results yesterday on FOX News.

    They made him “feel mad, angry because they were wrong…” [sic]

    Editor’s Note: Can you provide links for each of these stories? I’d love to create a page where we can list all of the snafus of the voting machines. Thanks!

    Comment by Raul Vergara — 11/8/2004 @ 7:58 pm

  34. That the vote changed significantly late in the day confirms that there probably was fraud. Late in the day a number of people would have voted (70-80%) and any change would not be immediately noticed. If the exit polls had shown a large Bush vote early in the day, the radar would have been raised as Democratic voters were being counted.
    Think about it.

    Comment by Harry Tomasello — 11/8/2004 @ 8:01 pm

  35. PA final count was Kerry 50.83% to Bush 48.58%. The chart appears to say the reported vote was Kerry 46% and Bush 49%.

    Editor’s Note: Thanks – that was a transcription error – wasn’t in Dr. Anick’s analysis. This entire assignment proves once and for all that numbers are not my province.

    Comment by Curious — 11/8/2004 @ 8:14 pm

  36. Trish, et al.

    Well bust my buttons! Yes, indeed, the Florida Dept o’ Lections has changed their report.

    Now, as of this writing, the turnout is 7,622,037 with a total of 7,592,915 votes cast for presidential candidates. That makes 29,122 voters who, perhaps, protested by not casting a vote for any presidential candidate.

    Okay, so do we need to assume that, worst case, Florida is creating ghost votes (with an unknown beneficiary or beneficiaries), in which case it’s fraud, or, best case, ‘lection officers in Florida CAN’T ADD COLUMNS OR CORRECTLY INPUT DATA, in which case why should we trust their results anyway?

    How much do they pay these punks? Can I have their six-figure jobs?

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I am Oz, the great and powerful!

    Comment by Rob in the PacNW — 11/8/2004 @ 8:35 pm

  37. Without coming down on one side or the other, I think this particular analysis is flawed, because it ignores the relationship between the geographic distribition of evoting machines and the exit polling. It happens to be the case that the evoting machines were mostly installed in swing states, and since the exit polling was more intensive in those states, you would expect a lower variance and a corresponding higher variance in the non swing states, a priori. The study is bunk, this makes people think there was nothing anomalous, and in fact there were incredible and statistically significant anamalies across the country.

    Editor’s Note: This analysis using the ONLY public data available; of course we would have loved to have used a larger sample but the media refuses to release additional polling for these hours without being paid for it (so much for protecting the public interest).

    Also, to say only swing states use evoting is simply inaccurate. More than HALF of the states in the U.S. use some evoting. See the link from which we determined whether they were evoting or paper ballot states.

    Comment by Leif — 11/8/2004 @ 8:55 pm

  38. PS: I think Raw Story/Blue Lemur is ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS.

    Or, perhaps, MAHVELOUS for bringing us all of this info (and I have a right to say it exactly like that).

    Even though the early Florida theories are being seriously questioned by this analysis, let’s not be disappointed. We don’t want to base allegations of election stealing on false information.

    That would be like basing REAL allegations of dereliction of duty on FAKE documents. Just as in the case involving Dan Rather, the leak of fake documents (by Karl Rove, no doubt) has cast a pall on the whole story of Bush the Faker’s real failure to live up to his military duty.

    Hang with this story, because there’s something here.

    As a long time Dungeons & Dragons player, I know how hard it is to roll 18/00 strength for your dwarf warrior. So just how did our country roll 1 in 50,000 this time around?

    Can the MIT math guy ’splain it?

    Comment by Rob in the PacNW — 11/8/2004 @ 9:07 pm

  39. A good list of voting irregularities

    http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?offset=0&catid=&showall=&sort=

    Comment by tampamom — 11/8/2004 @ 9:12 pm

  40. Zoinks…I was devastated by the outcome but accepted that they won fair and square, but after days of reading…not so much.

    One point on the larger gain for Bush in NY (paper ballots) somehow invalidating the irregularities I think that is more easily explained.

    This was the site of the attack! Of course there was a bigger increase for Bush (not justifying it BTW). But let’s hear it for New Yorkers who in the face of what happened right in their back yard still came out overwhelmingly to support Kerry.

    Comment by Randy McGowan — 11/8/2004 @ 10:41 pm

  41. video of Ohio “young” republicans on election day

    http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/06/electionday_footage_.html

    Comment by tampamom — 11/8/2004 @ 11:18 pm

  42. THIS MAY SEEM rather SIMPLISTIC But
    from the article below:

    both Bush and Kerry held on to 90% of the voters for their parties from 2000 (so they traded 10% and should have still been ‘tied’…

    but then there were 15% more new voters - 60% of whom voted for Kerry..

    if the exit polls showed this then what was the late surge. for Bush..
    suddenly 60% of new voters went to Bush - statistically unlikely
    OR suddenly a whole lot more Democrats voted for BUSH… NOT LIKELY either if it did not show in the earlier exit polls! Something wrong here!

    Exit polls show new voters helped make election close

    By R.W. Apple Jr. And Janet Elder

    NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

    President Bush’s bid for re-election was weakened by his failure to compete on even terms with Sen. John Kerry among the millions of new voters who cast ballots yesterday, preliminary data from exit polling indicated.

    Almost 15 percent of voters said they had not voted in the 2000 election; of those, more than 60 percent said they chose Kerry this year. On the other hand, Bush held on to 90 percent of the voters who said they had backed him four years ago, and Kerry won 90 percent of the voters who said they had supported Al Gore, the Democratic nominee in 2000.

    Comment by VL Lehman — 11/8/2004 @ 11:24 pm

  43. Interesting article on Facism - especially point #14 regarding fraudulent elections. Do these 14 points remind anyone of anything in the current state of the union?
    Jim Klug

    Fascism Anyone?
    Laurence W. Britt

    ——————————————————————————–

    The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

    We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

    Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

    For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

    Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

    5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

    6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

    7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

    9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

    14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

    Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

    Note

    1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

    References

    Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
    Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
    Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
    Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
    de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
    Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
    Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
    Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
    Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
    Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
    Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
    Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
    Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
    Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
    Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

    Comment by Jim Klug — 11/8/2004 @ 11:54 pm

  44. 2004 race not over!
    Michael McCulley

    (Nader campaign) N.H. Recount:
    For Further Information:
    Kevin Zeese 202.265.4000

    Nader/Camejo Challenge Electronic Voting Results in New Hampshire
    Washington, DC:The Nader/Camejo campaign has filed a challenge to the voting results in New Hampshire after receiving numerous complaints from voting rights activits. Below is Nader’s letter to New Hampshire requesting a recount. Also, below is Nader’s view on electronic voting without a paper trial. In addition, the Nader/Camejo campaign offered our campaign to poll watchers who wanted to be credentialed to be inside to monitor electronic voting. Hundreds of democracy activists in Maryland working with TrueVoteMD.org were credentialed to monitor polling through the Populist Party which was created by Nader-Camejo supporters in Maryland.

    ——————————————————————————–

    November 5, 2004

    Via fax: 603-271-6316
    To The Secretary of State of New Hampshire:

    The Nader/Camejo campaign requests a hand recount of the ballots in the presidential election in New Hampshire. Numerous voting rights activists have requested that we seek a recount of this vote.

    We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire. These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.

    We are requesting that the state undertake this recount or a statistically significant sample audit of these vote counts.

    We would like to make sure every vote counts and is counted accurately.

    Sincerely,

    Ralph Nader

    Comment by Michael McCulley — 11/9/2004 @ 12:00 am

  45. One error: in NY, we don’t vote on “paper ballots” but on the old-fashioned lever voting machines. Where did this guy obtain his information? Clearly doesn’t vote in NY, where the only paper ballots are either absentees or provisionals (and isn’t it interesting that the NYS Board of Elections doesn’t list official numbers pending the statewide certification – you have to go to all the county boards for them!).

    Still, I believe the overall Republican turnout was just higher than Democratic. The D candidate sucked, which is why most of us were voting against the R candidate rather than FOR the D.

    Editor’s Note: Thanks for the correction; it was my mistake. I’ve added this correction to the article.

    Correction: An earlier iteration of this article stated that New York used paper ballots. This is not correct. While the thrust of the statement remains the same (New York does not use any electronic voting), and none of the points of the article change, New York in fact uses lever-based voting machines, not paper ballots.

    Comment by Anon in NY — 11/9/2004 @ 12:04 am

  46. I am curious about that .002 stat. I take it that this was for the probability of 1) the vote swinging to Bush by around 4.15%, 2) late in the day, with 3) independence assumed between data points. Is that right? Also, can you ask your MIT guy to explain the time of day (2) in more detail? Meaning, what was the time period in which the polls “swung"? Just wondering - it’s always good to know where your stats come from…

    I saw something earlier about the late-day swing being impossible in some states based on the number of voters added. Does anyone know, did that hold water at all?

    Comment by Kaja — 11/9/2004 @ 1:20 am

  47. Tonight, 11/9/04, Keith Olberman ran a very good story reporting the same boogie man votes in Ohio and Florida. In Oho Keith said, there were 93,000 spoiled votes: votes not counted. Then an additonal 92,000 votes appeared outta thin air: unless ghost were voting, Cleveland had 92,000 more voters than actual people.

    Now add in some of the other abnomalities from other counties in Ohio and Keith is wondering who really won the Ohio vote or better yet the presidential election.

    So why isn’t Keith on the media lockdown? I know he is renegade and brilliant in his reporting but he is media.

    Keith has our back, he’s not gonna drop it. He wants a new pres too!

    Comment by acbalint — 11/9/2004 @ 1:41 am

  48. I would like information about “Bev Harris", founder of the “black box voting.org” entity.

    I am getting increasingly concerned about her credentials and behavior. Mr. Olbermann ran the story without any problems tonight. One of Harris’s staff just spoke in AirAmerica Radio 10 minutes ago, telling the host that their website was “down", that was “hacked” earlier.

    Well, I have an average computer and I am surfing their site without ANY problem right now???

    Who is this lady?

    Regards.

    Comment by Raul Vergara — 11/9/2004 @ 1:47 am

  49. Man … you people are looking for anything and everything, forget the truth. In a court of law the answers are obvious.

    1) you can buy the holy grail county numbers, so do it and stop whining about it – heck its for the Presidency so pony up, you are making the accusations, do something about it!!

    2) there is an obvious and acknowledged (by your MIT guy) big problem with your entire thesis … in such a state of vitriol, hate and venem against Reps in the press (I know, except FOX), why would any Republican state their correct vote to that same press in a post-vote poll? Answer, not everyone did and so your poll is dirty, and you cannot prove it either way. BIG FLAW IN YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY … and you cant get around that.

    3) you are talking about humans inputting numbers in databases and in web sites. So, just like this website with its numerous corrections to the data they list, doesnt anyone think that maybe Florida got the website data inputted wrong? I see every time on the NYTimes website mistakes in writing and data, every day. Its not a sign that they are intentionally misleading or that there is foul play. Get real people.

    YOU LOST … DEAL WITH IT. KERRY DID. CLINTON DID.

    Comment by YeahRight — 11/9/2004 @ 2:33 am

  50. The actual definition of fascism has changed. In older Webster’s
    there was always a direct tie between big business and government. It is so creepy that this definition has changed.
    Possibly someone with an older version hanging around would
    care to post both? A small but amusing tid bit, amongst all the other way to real topics.

    Comment by Vera creepy — 11/9/2004 @ 3:50 am

  51. For those of us who had read Bev Harris’s book[free online at her site] we knew Bush would win if that was the will of the people who control the voting industry.

    For a concise article on the whole debacle known as american democracy try this on

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

    Comment by The shadow — 11/9/2004 @ 4:22 am

  52. Fascism was originally used by Mussolini, he called it corporatism. The word is now used to mean a variety of things, usually equivalent with plutocracy plus a strong does of nationalism, patriotism, and draconian laws to enforce militarization and mobilization of the state. With of course all big business in as few hands as possible, who also control government.

    The ruling elites have been split into two camps for most of the last century. The fascist section who financed the fascist states leading up to WW2 {see antony suttons book on wall street and hitler at http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/} as well as the socialist section who believe in world socialism/world government. They financed the communist world.

    Although they have different ideas on how to be rulers of the world, they are also interconnected.

    They all believe in social darwinism heavily influenced by malthus. This is why there has been so much death in the 20th century. They want to kill off as many people as possible, they encourage wars, disease, famine, poverty etc. They fear a large underclass, a large angry poor population is a great fear to them, as it should be. Do a google search on keywords [malthus, rockefeller, eugenics, population control, world bank]

    Comment by The shadow — 11/9/2004 @ 4:38 am

  53. Who the hell is this David Anick? Where can I see the actual statistical analysis he did?

    Is this reall? I can’t find anything about this guy or his work on google… maybe it’s just me, but I want to vertify this!

    Please help…

    Comment by Mk — 11/9/2004 @ 4:42 am

  54. wow, the definition of fascism has been changed? thats kinda creepy…1984 anybody?

    Comment by cody — 11/9/2004 @ 6:53 am

  55. What seems more curious to me than descrepencies between exit polls and vote , are the strange anomolies between votes cast and registered party affiliation. These figures were summarized from data posted at ustogether.org. They show the the percent gain over what would be expected if voter turnout were equal for each party and everyone voted along party lines. We’d expect small differences due to unequal turnout, independents voting Rep or Dem, and some voters changing parties. But look how op-scan counties in Florida stand out, compared to e-touch counties, and non-electronic voting in Pennsylvania.

    Reps Dems
    Penn
    Punch card 25.15% 5.35%
    Lever 23.01% 7.99%
    Op-Scan 21.55% -2.99%

    Florida
    E-Touch 27.93% 23.80%
    Op-Scan 134.79% -22.29%

    Comment by Jim — 11/9/2004 @ 7:52 am

  56. To Rob in the PacNW:

    I would doubt that ‘lection officials in FLA can’t add or count! What I would believe is that they are under orders to deliver for the ole’ brudda.

    Yesterday morning when the votes cast were 130,000 more than voters in the state, they were listed as FINAL. Since the posts, the numbers have changed, and are also listed as FINAL. I do not blame election workers, I blame the guy at the top..who whaddayaknow.. just happens to be Bro

    Comment by trish — 11/9/2004 @ 8:38 am

  57. What are your thougts on this?

    http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater256.html

    Comment by tampamom — 11/9/2004 @ 9:01 am

  58. Wow!!

    It must be voter fraud, it couldn’t be that Bush actually won!!

    Crybaby losers!!

    Comment by Bruiser — 11/9/2004 @ 10:25 am

  59. *****Consistent/systematic errors in weighting demographic groups*****

    DUH! This is already an established FACT -why prove it statistically??????

    Comment by Kerry Lost - Get Over It!!! — 11/9/2004 @ 11:19 am

  60. Here’s video on the scam from MSNBC last night:

    http://www.armyofone.info

    Comment by Dr Rational — 11/9/2004 @ 11:49 am

  61. I concur with the very first comment made. Your story is misleading. While it is true that optical scan machines are not “electronic BALLOTING,” they most certainly are electronic voting systems. In fact, esp. in the case of Diebold (which was actually built/based on ES&S software which implicates them as well), some of the very same software is used in the optical scan systems as their touchscreen systems. Further, optical scan systems are vulnerable to the very same problems that touchscreen machines are – external hacking, internal fraud and manipulation, errors and bugs, etc. There is no substantive difference, with the sole exception that optical scan voting systems at least START with a voter-verified paper ballot that could, conceivably, be used in a manual recount whereas the touchscreens don’t even offer that small protection.

    I appreciate your efforts, and this is an excellent article otherwise, but I do believe it is seriously flawed because of the confusion it introduces.

    Editor’s Note: I changed the article to say ‘electronic balloting.’ However, this does not change the result; we studied optical scan variance as well, which I’ve now included.

    Moreover, 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.

    Comment by Eloriel — 11/9/2004 @ 11:59 am

  62. I saw a republican leader claiming that
    he had lifelong democrats coming up to him saying that they were going to secretly vote for Bush but they weren’t letting others know because they were ashamed to let their fellow Democrats know that. Yeah right.

    To me that sounds like a pre-emptive strike to make people think there are all these Democrats secretly going to vote for Bush–as a way to explain the strange voting results.

    Another republican also claimed that Bush supporters were told not to cooperate with exit polling. Yeah, maybe. Maybe it is another good pre-emptive strike lie to account for the exit polling discrepancies that would show up before the data could be fixed.

    Comment by Sair — 11/9/2004 @ 11:59 am

  63. Exit Polls Are Flawed. That is why they have a ‘margin of error’. They know that they won’t be right, only provide an indication of what the particular pollster’s methodology is trending towards. End of story.

    My guess is that the pollsters didn’t account for the fact that Republicans work during the day and don’t show up until after work. I won’t go into the converse… Seems like a simple concept, but evidently they missed it.

    Comment by Rich — 11/9/2004 @ 12:09 pm

  64. There is rightfully a lot of speculation happening here and in various other places online. We want the exit poll results, so we should pay for them. We want to know if the election was tampered with, so we should go find out. If the mass media doesn’t jump on this, which it appears they will not, I’m going to pick the county in Florida where the numbers are the most surprising (based on previous vote patterns + the exit polls that we have), and go door to door and ask them.

    No joke. I’ll knock on a thousand doors for democracy.

    Comment by Michael — 11/9/2004 @ 12:31 pm

  65. Excellent article and analysis.

    Unfortunatly, you have a bunch of sore losers on here who are being fed crap by the Bev Harris’s of the world. For example, as someone posted, she floated that “lockdown” story out last night and must have made $10,000 in donations from the democraticunderground within 4 hours.

    But nobody’s explained Olbermann and Imus talking about it. Some lockdown, huh?

    Everybody beleives the results, but don’t want to beleive the numbers they are framed against. So, there are plenty of opportunities to create monsters to believe in.

    Kerry got his ass handed to him by the worst president in history. I’d be too embarrassed to admit defeat too.

    Comment by DubyaSux — 11/9/2004 @ 12:34 pm

  66. Four points on Anick’s set of four possible causes.

    One: Back up your logic. Unsubstantiated “dilemmas” of this type, which present a finite set of possible explanations, can be defended… but (per the article above) he doesn’t do so. More typically, if someone says “It can only be (A), (B), or ©", he’s simply missed one or more root causes.

    Walk through the trail of events, the variables being reported at each juncture and how they might be distorted. Defend that list of causes, or expand it until it is defensible. ‘Til then, this analysis won’t hold enough water to hit the media.

    Address all the points on the list with the same mathematical and/or journalistic rigour that you address number four, the possibility of cheating.

    Two: As an example, we have some well-quoted evidence that option #3, a swing in turnout after the exit poll numbers being used, is not the case.

    And this can be explicitly addressed by buying those numbers, with certification that they haven’t been altered, from the NEP. Set up a fund here and do it, already! People were offering to pay for recounts, which would have to be more expensive than this… put your money where your mouth is, before doing too much analysis of less-than-useful data. Get the final exit polls, do this right.

    Three: Correct the exit poll raw data. The Republicans will tell you that of course the demographic data have been misrepresented - the fallacious set of arguments surrounding the “Dixiecrats” (Florida registered-Democrat, voting-Republican voters, historically and cultural simply a fact) is an example.

    Moreover, the “mysterious changes” to the networks’ exit poll numbers based on final turnout figures to correct the demographics is also routine. Say you expected, going into the exit polling process, that for every ten voters, three would be female. So you sample three hundred female voters and seven hundred males; fine. Then, from the election turnout results (here being merged with the questionable vote results, but hopefully somewhat extricable), you find out that actually, 40% of voters this year were female. Your poll numbers accurately represent a 30/70 gender split population… they do NOT accurately represent who showed up.

    As such, you need to fix option #2, that the demographic data might have been skewed, in order for your analysis on #4 to make sense. Period. So if you cannot obtain reliable demographics of the voter turnout, NOT based on the recorded (and questioned) vote totals, then you cannot properly defend the exit polling discrepancy. Simply put, in the above example, you can only correct your 30/70 split based on true data… and if that true data is only available through your suspect source, then it has to be handled with tongs.

    Note that even if you cannot get independent demographic data, the demographics from the recorded vote set may still not match the recorded vote totals, in which case #4 might yet hold up. But here, you’re basically hoping that Rove (or whomever) didn’t anticipate this line of inquiry, and so didn’t falsify both the demographics and the totals in unison. If they did, and you can’t get independent data, then quite simply the correction-information doesn’t exist that can make your exit polls hold enough water.

    Four: Show us the math on what it would take for the polls to be wrong. Show us the math on options #1 (skewed willingness to talk to pollsters) and #2 (skewed demographics, see above). How large would each skew have to be? How wrong would they have to get those numbers? If you can’t get independent demographics, this might still mean you have one number to show, if not two.

    Do EVERYTHING as dilligently as you do the option - number four - you hope is true. I do, too, by the way. But that weakens, not strengthens, your case to me.

    Comment by A Canadian Reader — 11/9/2004 @ 1:10 pm

  67. In Europe they have several different firms doing exit polls so if one is wrong the others can predicte the result correctly.

    Comment by Iureldas — 11/9/2004 @ 1:16 pm

  68. Trish -

    Yap, methinks yer right!

    But, the Freeps want us to get over it. Funny how they never did when Clinton won his first term. All you heard was “He’s not legitimate, withour Ross Perot he wouldn’t be President.” Their whining NEVER ended.

    And it’s, funny how they hounded Clinton from non-existant scandal to non-existant scandal until they caught him up on embarassing blow-job charges; charges that were pursued by the Gingrich Revolution while the Grinch himself was boinking his congressional secretary (who became his third wife after he divorced his second wife whom he had also been boinking when SHE was his secretary while his first wife and the mother of his children had cancer; so much for Republican “moral values").

    Gee, Freepers are so understanding. “Just get over it you Dems! Kerry did!”

    And if Kerry did, then you all should just shut up! Yeah! So there!Fu** yer votes! Fu** THE vote!

    Ya know somethin’ Freepers? Fu** U!

    Your venemous hero, Karl Rove, manipulated the political rise of a pathetic, self-indulgent, over-priviledged, under-achiever who now has completely gone off the deep end with delusions of Godhood grandeur (as if he wasn’t bad enough before).

    So ’splain this to me Freeperville - how DID Karl Rove roll a 1 in 50,000 crapshoot? What would Occam’s Razor say about it? God’s will? Or loaded dice?

    Comment by Rob in the PacNW — 11/9/2004 @ 2:54 pm

  69. I’m with Michael, up above. It completely strains credibility that Kerry would not have gained in one single state.

    Comment by Diane — 11/9/2004 @ 3:35 pm

  70. I’m SO GLAD for RawStory!

    I was listening to a post-mortem talking about all of the America Coming Together workers having “detailed voter information” in their PDAs. Why doesn’t somebody target *one* heavily Democratic FL country that voted for Bush and TRY TO FIND those huge numbers of cross-over voters???

    Comment by Laurie Roberts — 11/9/2004 @ 4:31 pm

  71. It’s prolly a combination of opti-scan tally manipulation and actual voter suppression at the voting sites along with other nefarious deeds in small but significant numbers that tally up to Kerry losing those swing states.
    Why can’t the Dems be as dishonest as the Repubs? If yer ask me, I wanna put up a 3rd party candidate…like a Ross Perot to make sure we win in 2008. Heck…if they can support Nader we can find a nice juicy Libertarian to eat away their vote.

    Comment by Barbara Ritter — 11/9/2004 @ 6:19 pm

  72. check out the zogby polls…….some say they’re flawed…..but only when they dont support those in power……click on the link below….did anyone address the concerns of the new yorkers that thought the bush admin could have prevented…..and the 66% that want the case reopened………the answer is obvious

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

    Comment by dan — 11/9/2004 @ 6:42 pm

  73. This is IMPORTANT. Mainstream news supporting fraud in the 2004 election…….

    http://www.armyofone.info/

    Comment by Thomas — 11/9/2004 @ 8:21 pm

  74. I find it difficult to believe that every voting descrepency in the country accidentally favored Bush.

    That’s like flipping a coin 1000 times and it always comes up tails.
    I don’t buy it.

    Of course we know who made and holds the coin.

    Comment by Les In Chicago — 11/9/2004 @ 11:49 pm

  75. John,

    Just so you know. They do use paper ballots in New York. Provisional ballots. Last year, for some odd reason (hint), I wasn’t on the roll even though I had gotten a card in the mail…so I was forced to vote on a paper provisional ballot…which probably wasn’t ever even counted…since they’re not unless it’s a close election.

    this year I had problems again in Brooklyn. I wrote about it on my blog before the election but no one seemed to care. Even though I registered on the last day possible in order to vote on November 2nd…I received a card that said I was registered starting November 9th. I called the ACLU and they told me that they and NYPIRG knew of the problem and were sending out corrected cards….Then when I voted…My name was on the roll twice. The second slot with my name (which contained a different number than the other one…and the one on my card) said that they had no signature for me so I had to vote by provisional ballot. The elderly poll workers assured me that it meant nothing and let me go in the booth after signing next to the first slot. Of course, I have no way of knowing if my vote was counted this year either. I tried calling the 1-866 number but it was busy…until I got through…and then it cut me off. Then I just shuffled off to Pennsylvania to help get out the vote.

    Why Are We Back In Iraq?

    P.S. I found a shocking link on the Army of One website listed above. It seems that Homeland Security prevented onlookers from watching the votes being counted on Election Day. The link is on my site, now, as well.

    Comment by Ron Brynaert — 11/10/2004 @ 1:44 am

  76. For Florida results by county:
    http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
    For Ohio:
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/11/4/11425/1394

    Comment by David Sherman — 11/10/2004 @ 2:32 am

  77. People, take a look at what you are basing your entire conspiracy theory on!! You are not statisticians, nor are you pollsters. You are latching onto some so-called mathematician from MIT (that is nowhere to be found on any search) and his light analysis of some poll data this is suspect to begin with, that some here have pointed out completely avoids his own admissions of the problems with the analysis. This is what all of you are basing your entire argument on …. a back of the envelope shoddy analysis by someone no one can find and no one knows. You all sound like lunatics … THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING … WHAT FACTS, WHAT ANALYSIS, WHAT DOCUMENTATION. You, in truth, have NO IDEA!!

    This is why no news outlet will touch this, why Kerry wont touch this, why Clinton wont touch this. You sound like a bunch of crazed lunatics.

    Comment by You Are Not Statisticians — 11/10/2004 @ 2:43 am

  78. I feel helpless.

    Comment by JoaBlancoquin — 11/10/2004 @ 4:04 am

  79. you can’t take the state as a whole you need to take the county by county that is where I would hide an election…

    what’s the frequency kenneth?

    Comment by DAN RATHER — 11/10/2004 @ 6:29 am

  80. I am buying a horse and naming it Ingenius Rove and putting it to the races with those odds!

    Comment by DAN RATHER — 11/10/2004 @ 6:30 am

  81. I was a poll monitor in Philadelphia, volunteering with Election Protection (a non-partisan organization to protect the rights of voters). I was assigned to a voting site at a school in a 100% lower-middle class, black neighborhood of Philadelphia. In general, the election workers and officials were very organized, friendly, and we collaborated on any questions in a very productive way. However, voter intimidation was rampant.

    Two times a group of 4 huge, white, bodyguard-looking men in huge shiny, new Suburban SUVs with tinted windows pulled up outside the voting site I was monitoring (quite noticeable in a poor, black, rundown neighborhood) and sat in the car staring at voters as they tried to come to vote. In both cases, with another Election Protection volunteer, I went and stood next to the SUVs, with our Election Protection signs to encourage people to come vote. In both instances the cars finally left (once after five minutes and the second time after two minutes).

    Later, a white, conservative, older couple came in through another door and started wandering inside the voting site claiming to be from the District Attorney’s office. They were standing next to the voting booths and asking questions of the election workers. The election workers believed that they were indeed from the District Attorney’s office, and so felt obliged to let them do as they pleased. When I confronted the couple, they said, “We are Attorneys for the District". I questioned the meaning of that. They then admitted to being lawyers from Tennessee working for Bush. I told them leave and they did.

    And last, worst of all: In the afternoon (at a different voting site), another huge, shiny SUV with tinted windows pulled right up to voting site. Two huge, white guys got out with things that looked like guns on their belts (though they were not guns). They opened their trunk and took out four small cardboard lunch boxes, and they stormed into the voting site saying they wanted to be sure everything was working properly. They then proceeded to rummage around the voter lists. Again, I confronted them. One of the men answered: “Oh we are just delivering lunch to the Republican poll watchers". The poll watchers are, of course, stationed OUTSIDE the voting site. I told the two to leave, which they did.

    In each intimidation case I describe, I did file a lengthy report. I hope that has some local impact in the long term. But, it will take a more collective awareness, to have the issue addressed on a national or even state level. So, I share my stories so that we can do more.

    Comment by Virginie Perrette — 11/10/2004 @ 11:17 am

  82. Does anyone have knowledge or research about any vote/election auditing in the USA on any governmental level? It seems to me that we *should* complete each election exercise with an auditing exercise, where there’s a (random) selection of counties, precincts, whatever, in which a manual recount is made and compared to the “official” final results - obviously by an independent nonpartisan/nongovernmental body conducting it.
    If the process detects anomalies or patterns of them, futher inquiry can then be initiated. Nothing provides absolute protection of the vote, but this would be a step in the right direction to reducing the possibility of fraud.

    I’ve heard a lot about poll monitors in overseas elections, but are there audits elsewhere that take place like this that could be modelled? And is there anything like this already in place anywhere in the USA at any level of voting?

    Comment by D Hawkins — 11/10/2004 @ 1:20 pm

  83. When analyzing the exit polls, some people have suggested that we leave out the uncontested states. Actually, this is a problem with most of the analysis that I have seen. Even when you use the adjusted numbers, as posted
    in this article which defends the exit polls
    , there is something signifigant going on. I won’t conjecture as to the possible causes, but what are the odds that the average error between exit polls and results would be so much greater in the battleground states but not in the other states? I guess we have to make sure that NEP wasn’t using different methods in battleground states to make anything of this, but at first glance this looks fishy and an explanation for the pattern would be nice to find.

    Comment by skids — 11/10/2004 @ 3:44 pm

  84. I’m a Bush supporter and I’ll tell you my “theory” on why the exit polling was so off.

    My top reason is: The types of people that can vote throughout a work day are women and students, both of which lean Kerry. Working people voted later (after 4pm) and a large majority of them obviously voted Bush.

    I also think you people are unhealthy. Voting irregularies happen every 4 years, not just during an election where Bush is running. Bush also won by 5 million votes in the popular election and recieved more than 50% of the popular vote, something Bill Clinton didn’t even do. Why is it so hard to realize that you are out of step with mainstream America? You know and I know the media went to bat big time for Kerry. You also know orgs like MoveOn.org did their damndest to defeat Bush. You also know that most of the attempted voter fraud was Pro-Kerry. Take all these shady tactics away and where do you think Kerry would have ended up? If just the media gave Bush an honest shake Kerry would have been blown off the face of the planet. Face it, the document scandal, the 60 minute book reviews of Liars like Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson (both proven liars). Heck if you take a good look you’ll notice the democrats and the divison of this country neatly coincided with the start of the democratic run for president. Coinncidence…well I don’t think so. Bush won becuase thankfullyhalf the country doesn’t listen to CBS, MTV, NYT, and Hollywood for their politic opinion. I have this new question I ask libs I like. If over half the country believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 how come you don’t? I love watching them try and answer that one. First they start out with the 9/11 commission, or at least what they think the 9/11 commission said, but they quickly fade when they learn the 9/11 commission never proved Saddam wasn’t involved, they just proved they couldn’t prove he did.

    Peace does not beget peace. Never has never will.

    Except for ending Slavery, Facism, Communism, and Nazism War has never solved anything.

    Comment by ByeKerry — 11/10/2004 @ 4:16 pm

  85. ByeKerry
    Why don’t you tell us how Saddam was involved, i’m sure everybody on this link would like to know that.. seems you’re the only man alive, besided the whitehouse who’s got that info.So do us all a favor, and explain how 9/11 was linked to Saddam, and by the way, you have to know where the WMD are . So just fill us in on all secrets.

    Comment by Concerned — 11/10/2004 @ 4:36 pm

  86. Just wanted to mention that retirees also vote during the day. So your reasoning about women and students is flawed. Also I noticed that most white collar types vote during the day and then the blue collar workers vote after their shifts end. So Im not so sure that your anaylsis is correct regarding workers voting for Bush after 4 pm.

    BTW thats a real ’stinger’ about Saddam and 9/11! Wheh–ask me sometime okay? I’ll give you an answer.

    Comment by Poll Watcher — 11/10/2004 @ 5:19 pm

  87. That retirees vote during the day supports the notion of oversampling Kerry supporters. The Dems used the old “Bush is going to steal’ your social security late in the election for the very purpose of driving retirees to Bush.

    Another possibility is that the exit polls were fraudulent. A former CBS exec runs the exit polling company and its no secret CBS hates Bush. Would it be beyond someone to put out depressing numbers to suppress the Republican vote. Is that why they are hiding the raw data?

    Comment by jet — 11/10/2004 @ 5:54 pm

  88. Firstly, the statistical analysis should be nation-wide, and find, among other things, if e-voting machines are a “significant predictor” of exit poll - vote count discrepancy.

    Secondly, to dramatically improve the accuracy of the statistical analysis, if at all possible, the analysis should be done at the county level, at least in states with high discrepancy.

    Comment by Kevin Baas — 11/10/2004 @ 7:13 pm

  89. I have worked as an Inspector for the last eight general elections in California. We have always counted on a big turnout in the morning, then a steady stream the rest of the day, with another large turnout in the evening (the after-work crowd) before closing at 8 PM. This year was quite unusual in that we had a larger turnout than usual in the morning (with lengthy waiting lines), with a dropoff in the late afternoon and evening. I estimated over 75 percent had voted before 3 PM. I was surprised at how few voted after that, yet overall we had a very good turnout.

    Comment by Arturo Adame — 11/11/2004 @ 4:51 am

  90. This article presents the information in a rather confusing way, as if the suspicions of fraud have been debunked. I had to re-read it several times to understand the gist: that although the study showed no statistically significant difference between paper states and evote states in terms of a difference between exit polls and recorded vote, on the other hand, the difference between exit polls and recorded vote in ALL states IS statatistically significant, i.e. NOT DUE TO CHANCE ALONE. So, although some other possible explanations are offered, it does support the possibility of fraud (but not fraud due to evote hacking alone).

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Editor: That’s right.

    Comment by anomaly — 11/11/2004 @ 5:17 am

  91. “I have this new question I ask libs I like. If over half the country believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 how come you don’t?”

    Uhh…because THE US INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DOESN’T? It’s pretty much acknowledged fact now. I guess you haven’t heard that on Faux News, huh?

    Strangely, we don’t believe there were WMD either, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T FIND ANY. Duh.

    “You also know that most of the attempted voter fraud was Pro-Kerry.”

    According to who? We’re finding evidence, where’s yours?

    “You know and I know the media went to bat big time for Kerry.”

    You have got to be kidding. Talk about unhealthy…I guess after listening to the likes of Rush for too long, news that is actually balanced must seem biased in the other direction….like wearing rose-colored glasses, when you take them off, everything looks blue.

    Comment by anomaly — 11/11/2004 @ 5:28 am

  92. Shame on us for not doing something about this before the election. I know I sounded the warning to as many people that would listen about the reality that this election was going to be stollen because of the e-voting machine. Now I realize there were even more opportunities to commit fraud. We were asleep at the wheel! Why do we only address a problem “AFTER” it happens. The University of Maryland, according to the NPR report that I just happened to hear on Saturday morning, about two years ago did a test on all of the e-voting machines. The brought in the top computer security people in the country to see if they could hack into them. Within one hour the first machine was broken into and according to the report, by the end of the day, all of the machines security had been compromised.

    One of the computer security people interviewed explained how easily it would be intercept the uplooaded results being sent over a wireless nework, modify the results and send it on it’s way to the server without anyone knowing the difference.

    Guys, this was two years ago this information came out!! What did we do about it, very little.

    If you didn’t see this coming, you weren’t paying attention.

    Yes, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but we had plenty of time to work on it prior to this last election and failed to do so. End of story.

    Comment by Martie Anderson — 11/11/2004 @ 10:21 am

  93. We knew long before the election that there were problems and failed to fix them or address them. Shame on us for not doing something about this before the election. University of Maryland brought top computer security people in to test out all of the e-voting machines two years ago. Within the first hour, the first machine was tampered with and by the end of the day, the security folks had shown how easy it would be to intercept an uplink from a polling place, change the results within a matter of minutes and send it on its way to the server without anyone knowing the difference.

    Did we not think that this indifference to this issue would be exploited? We were asleep at the wheel. End of story!

    Comment by Martie Anderson — 11/11/2004 @ 10:27 am

  94. The issue with Broward county, Florida is that they won’t release the numbers by precinct for the total voter turnout. they only reflect the election day turnout and most precincts only registered between 25 to 40 % turnout. The early voters account for the difference to a county average of 66 percent.YES, that’s about 1/2 of all the votes. if we can’t see the totals per precinct, we can’t see if more votes were cast than registered voters. But most importantly to me, the reported overall voter turnout in Broward is inexplicably LESS than it was for Gore Bush in 2000. Even considering there were 2 weeks of early voting with lines around the corner, down the street and the highest voter turnout in history expected. this just doesn’t jive with reality. by shaving the total voters in broward miami and palm beach bush was insured a victory, without having to skew the countywide margin of victory for Kerry.

    Further, the state’s website shows ZERO provisional ballots cast in either miami-dade, broward or Palm beach counties!!!!

    I will never accept Bush as president. Never.

    Comment by Johnny Friendly — 11/11/2004 @ 6:48 pm

  95. I’m mathematically challenged… I don’t understand the paragraphs that say there isn’t a statistical diff. between states with paper ballots and evoting…

    If that were true, then wouldn’t that prove there was no fraud???

    and if that’s true, doesn’t it in turn prove the statistical improbability of the 4+ gain is … nothing … because it in fact did happen?????

    Comment by Karen Kline — 11/11/2004 @ 11:35 pm

  96. 93,000 Extra Votes In Cuyahoga County - Outrage In Ohio
    By Teed Rockwell
    Philosophy Department, Sonoma State University
    11-12-4

    Smoking Gun

    You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct
    in Cuyahoga county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave
    Bush almost 4,000 extra votes.

    But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The
    evidence discovered by some remarkably careful sleuthing would
    convince any reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.

    In last Tuesday’s election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
    reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters
    - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there
    on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:

    Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast
    Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast
    Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast
    Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast
    Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast
    Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast
    Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast
    Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast
    Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast
    Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast
    Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
    Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast
    Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast
    Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast
    North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast
    Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast
    Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast
    Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast
    Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast
    South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast
    Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast
    University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast
    Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast
    Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast
    Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast
    Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast
    Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
    Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast
    Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast

    The Republicans are so BUSTED.

    http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top

    …is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board,
    providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least 93,000.
    Kerry lost Ohio by approximately 130,000, so this is not an
    insignificant figure that can be ignored, particularly when there are
    numerous other indications of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.

    I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio
    election, if not the entire national election. I’d say the game’s up.

    America, it looks pretty much like you’ve been had.

    Sincerely,

    Teed Rockwell
    Philosophy Department
    Sonoma State University

    OUTRAGE IN OHIO: ANGRY RESIDENTS STORM STATE HOUSE!
    MASSIVE VOTER SUPPRESSION & CORRUPTION DEMOCRACY
    FAILURE
    By David Solnit

    Hundreds of angry Ohio residents marched through the streets of
    Columbus, Ohio’s Capital, this evening and stormed the Ohio State
    House, defying orders and arrest threats from Ohio State Troopers.

    “O-H-I-O, Suppressed Democracy Has Got To Go!” they chanted.
    After troopers pushed and scuffled with people, nearly a hundred
    people took over the steps and entrance to the State’s giant white
    column capital building and refused repeated orders to disperse or
    face arrest.

    People prepared for arrests, ready to face jail, writing lawyers
    phone numbers on their arms, signing jail support lists and discussing
    NON-COOPERATION and ACTIVE RESISTANCE (linking arms,
    but not fighting back).

    A freshly painted banner held on the steps read, “ONE VOTE
    DENIED = DEMOCRACY IN TROUBLE! 100′S OF 1000′S
    OF VOTES SURPRISED = DEMOCRACY FAILED".

    An unprecedented massive grassroots voter registration and get out
    the vote effort and widespread opposition to Bush went up against
    the massive coordinated Republican effort to suppress, intimidate and
    possibly steal millions of votes.

    In addition to the voter suppression and intimidation is the fact that
    Bush campaign co-chair Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell is
    in charge of the election and vote counting.

    But much deeper questions about fundamental flaws in the system
    hang in the air.

    http://rense.com/general59/93000extravotes.htm

    Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:47 AM
    WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED IN OHIO?
    FOCUS: MSNBC Vote Fraud Video (Must See)
    http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

    More Key Reporting by Media on Election Problems
    http://www.WantToKnow.info/electionsproblems

    Zogby International

    Votergate 2004; We Don’t Need Paper to Prove Fraud,
    But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.

    Since last Tuesday there has been a justifiable uproar about the major
    differences between the exit polls in Ohio and Florida and the actual
    results. Democrats and Republicans, who both saw the same exit polls
    that showed an electoral landslide in favor of Kerry, have confirmed this.
    Investigative reporter Bob Parry confirmed from his sources that the Bush
    campaign was convinced they were going to lose. George H. W. Bush also
    confirmed this in an interview with The Today Show. So why have the exit
    polls been so wrong in the last two elections? It is clear that there must
    have been manipulation in the voting machines. While there’s been a lot of
    talk of problems with not having paper trails, computer fraud is uncovered
    most of the time without paper trails.

    As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout
    my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it’s easy to
    create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that.
    Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in
    companies. You don’t even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches
    can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud.

    With the votergate 2004 it’s a numbers game just like it is with corporate
    accounting, even easier. All you’re talking about is one number– total
    votes for each candidate.

    There’s a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling
    something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something
    that has already happened is highly reliable vs. predictive polls, like Gallup
    or Zogby, which is very risky. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4
    percent as we see with predictive polls, but rather a much more reliable
    plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because
    those are based on asking people who already voted. I would even say
    that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio,
    which it was, then these results should be practically “bullet proof.”

    It is important that people know how accurate random sampling of historical
    events can be in order for them to understand how unlikely it is that the
    exit polls were wrong. So if you want to fight the battle correctly, you
    must get more statisticians and forensic accountants involved as well as the
    lawyers. These statisticians can show with great credibility the probability
    of manipulation within the computer programs used for counting the ballots.
    They do this kind of work all the time to uncover fraud based upon computer
    manipulation in commercial and corporate activities. And these types of
    expert analyses are admissible in a court of law. The problem with all of
    this is determining who is going to fund such an investigation. Where will
    the money come from? Perhaps the Kerry/Edwards campaign fund has some
    surplus that can be used. It is possible that the DNC has some excess funds.
    How about the 527s and PACs who spent millions on ineffective political ads,
    coming up with a few million? In addition, who is going to lead the process
    of getting this done? This kind of an effort requires solidarity along with
    an organized coordinated effort. It’s easy to come up with the forensic and
    technical people to get this done, but we need a strong leader and
    solidarity. Leadership and funding– these are the two real challenges that
    must be dealt with in the coming days. We have a Watergate story here that
    could give the media a post election explosive news story that could make
    the 2000 Florida vote debacle look like small potatoes. We need to get the
    media to see that votergate 2004 is huge news and we need to quickly fund
    the investigation and get Democratic leaders behind it.

    Sheldon Drobny is CPA and Venture Capitalist and co-founder of
    Air America Radio.

    (11/9/2004)
    - By Sheldon Drobny, Op-Ed News
    http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10385

    Diebold Source Code!!! –by ouranos (dailykos.com) “Dr. Avi Rubin
    is currently Professor of Computer Science at John Hopkins University.
    He ‘accidentally’ got his hands on a copy of the Diebold software
    program–Diebold’s source code–which runs their e-voting machines.
    Dr. Rubin’s students pored over 48,609 lines of code that make up this
    software. One line in particular stood out over all the rest:
    #defineDESKEY((des_KEY8F2654hd4″ All commercial programs
    have provisions to be encrypted so as to protect them from having
    their contents read or changed by anyone not having the key… The
    line that staggered the Hopkins team was that the method used to
    encrypt the Diebold machines was a method called Digital Encryption
    Standard (DES), a code that was broken in 1997 and is NO LONGER
    USED by anyone to secure programs. F2654hd4 was the key to the
    encryption. Moreover, because the KEY was IN the source code, all
    Diebold machines would respond to the same key. Unlock one, you
    have then ALL unlocked. I can’t believe there is a person alive who
    wouldn’t understand the reason this was allowed to happen. This
    wasn’t a mistake by any stretch of the imagination.”

    The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy
    A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
    11/12/04 4:48 PM Update: PDF link goes to version “00l.”

    BuzzFlash was forwarded a copy of a new research paper (271k PDF)
    on the exit polls from the 2004 election.

    In “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy,” Dr. Steven F. Freeman says:

    “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 [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania]
    of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.”

    The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are,
    according to Freeman, “250,000,000 to one.” That’s 250 MILLION to
    ONE.

    He concludes the paper with this:

    “Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the
    election’s unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable
    hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia,
    polling agencies, and the public to investigate.”

    A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
    http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/ale04090.html

    Comment by squirrel — 11/13/2004 @ 12:48 pm

  97. The Freeman paper is more persuasive than the MIT paper, because the Freeman paper focuses specifically on the battleground states.

    Also, the problem isn’t necessarily with the evoting machines, though those do breed mistrust. The problem is also with the OPTICAL SCANNERS. Did anyone notice that states with optical scanners were generally way off with regard to the exit polls versus results? And in one Indiana county, an optical scanner subtracted 4,000 legitimate votes for Kerry and gave them to the Libertarian candidate. And no one even caught until they just decided to recount the ballots for fun by hand.

    These optical scanners are made by a major contributor to the GOP. How hard would it be to program a few of them randomly to subtract votes from the Democrat? It would take a SMALL conspiracy, not a large one, as people are suggesting.

    I’m thankful there’s going to be a partial recount in New Hampshire, and hopefully Ohio. At least that will put my own mind at ease and hopefully others as well.

    Comment by Clint Cooper — 11/15/2004 @ 12:32 am

  98. Nevada
    Turn Out = 831829 votes
    Presidential = 836640 votes
    Senate = 821607 votes
    Congress = 814284 votes
    (including under and over votes)
    Under votes = 7000 (95% from a county won by Kerry)

    Comment by Iureldas — 11/15/2004 @ 7:19 am

  99. Is anyone gaining access to the poll books or the poll lists in Ohio? Isn’t this the most simple method of comparison and the most damning evidence that the votes might have been cooked?

    Comment by Exotikat — 11/15/2004 @ 8:24 pm

  100. The “MIT” analysis uses the last exit poll versus the final results. The possible significance of the difference in exit polls lies in exit poll change over time, not in final poll (after manipulation) versus final result (which would only help to show success of the manipulation). However, the MIT analysis in question does kind of point to evidence such that the Republicans were not lying (at least not then :) at the time of the last poll. Or, we could say that Bush supporters are “not morning people” and lie abd dodge only in the mornings and not late in the day. At any rate, a simple line graph of the poll change over time compared with final results does not pass the laugh test.

    To boot, I find it odd that many elderly in FL find social security, importing medicine, health care, jobs and the economy as very important (which Kerry addressed specifically), yet favored Bush anyhow.

    None of it passes my laugh test.

    We may also want to turn our attention to cancelling our subscriptions to any news agency that is not providing resources for covering this obvious mess.

    Diane Steele

    Comment by Diane Steele — 11/20/2004 @ 12:36 pm

  101. Interesting to note that President Bush’s approval rating has shot up in the past two weeks. Maybe there was a problem with the polls afterall?

    Comment by bill — 11/23/2004 @ 12:18 pm

  102. Hey, lets go protest the war in Iraq. They are killing babies over there!!!

    …and then when we are done, I have a pro-abortion rally to catch.

    Comment by Jake Grafton — 11/24/2004 @ 6:29 pm

  103. In reading your chart in AR it states exit polls Kerry 45, Bush 54
    diff -.9 what difference???????? then it lists reported votes kerry 45 bush 54 difference -9.8 gain 0.8 Now I’m far from a mathmatitian or statitition but these numbers look exactly the same to me.

    Comment by Vickie Griffith — 11/28/2004 @ 1:51 am

  104. kerry lost, move on .org or better yet, just move on

    Comment by Vickie Griffith — 12/29/2004 @ 5:30 pm

  105. […] error. A RAW STORY analyst, however, who formerly taught Mathematics at MIT, David Anick, found that the odds of Bush gaining by four percentage points over the exit polls nationwide was one in […]

    Pingback by The Blue Lemur - Progressive Politics and Media News » Some national exit poll data leaked — 1/1/2005 @ 2:12 am

  106. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that these exit polls leaked to the bloggers were leaked by noon eastern time. Can polls taken early in the voting day represent the entire electorate? I suspect that the demographic make up of early voters might be quite different than that of voters later in the day. In addition, most people I know, who don’t vote abensentee, vote after work. People who work may different political views than those who don’t work. Does anyone have a link to exit polls taken throughout the voting day?

    Comment by Bob — 1/3/2005 @ 10:37 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>





Copyright (c) 2004 by John Byrne and Raw Story Media, Inc.

Powered by WordPress