Reply #110: yes, the data aren't exactly bulletproof [View All]

[OnTheOtherHand]

I've read the claim that the exit polls have a paper trail, but I'm not at all sure that it is true -- I don't know whether NEP even tries to collect all the surveys. (VNS in 2002 did try to collect all the surveys, and apparently got about 80% of them.) And if they do, I doubt the security protocols are up to spec.

Yes, inspection under non-disclosure agreements, or further data blurring, both are viable. AFAICT, most survey folks don't think that close inspection of the exit polls would reveal much more about the possibility of fraud, so there isn't a collective sense of urgency about this. And there isn't much concern about data subversion, because we generally don't think the data could be important enough to be worth subverting. But....

There's a matter of degree here that is hard to convey in DU discourse. Some folks here really do seem to think that the "raw data" have some conclusive proof of fraud, and so Mitofsky and/or the networks have conspired to cover them up. Very few survey folks believe any part of that, AFAICT. But the exit polls still could contain further suggestive evidence. So it's totally legitimate to try to figure out, for instance, is it worth it to try to get X dollars to blur some more state exit poll data, or would we be better off spending that money on FOIA work (or whatever)? (And of course if some people want to spend their money only on one of those, then they can do it -- no need to reach consensus on priorities.)