Pre-Undecided Voter Allocation
Projection
Projection
JK Exit Poll
Recorded
Diff
Diff
Obama
Obama
EV WTD
EV
EV Flip(*)
Poll
Date
9/10
9/10
8/16
7/14
8/20
9/10
7/31
2004
2/28
9/10
9/10
2/28
9/10
8/12
8/30
9/2
8/20
8/11
8/17
9/10
9/5
8/5
9/10
9/2
9/10
9/10
9/9
7/28
9/10
9/10
9/9
9/9
8/14
9/10
9/9
9/10
9/7
8/7
9/10
8/20
7/23
7/9
8/20
8/21
8/15
2/28
9/10
9/10
9/10
8/5
9/10
EV
538
9
3
10
6
55
9
7
3
3
27
15
4
4
21
11
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
17
10
6
11
3
5
5
4
15
5
31
15
3
20
7
7
21
4
8
3
11
34
5
3
13
11
5
10
3
Obama
46.15 %
35
35
37
33
52
49
55
90
50
44
38
61
29
58
43
55
35
38
38
52
53
51
48
53
39
45
42
32
45
51
50
47
53
41
41
47
24
49
48
51
40
43
36
38
23
63
47
49
39
48
39
McCain
45.27 %
55
54
49
49
37
46
37
9
41
49
56
31
68
36
48
40
58
54
54
38
41
39
45
41
52
50
53
50
46
45
41
45
37
52
55
48
56
42
45
30
53
47
55
49
62
29
50
46
44
41
58
Diff
0.88
(20)
(19)
(12)
(16)
15
3
19
81
9
(5)
(18)
30
(39)
22
(5)
15
(23)
(16)
(16)
14
12
13
3
12
(13)
(5)
(11)
(18)
(1)
6
9
2
16
(11)
(14)
(1)
(32)
7
3
21
(13)
(4)
(19)
(11)
(39)
34
(3)
3
(5)
7
(19)
Obama
51.30 %
41.0
41.6
45.5
43.6
58.8
52.0
60.1
90.6
55.4
48.2
41.6
65.8
30.8
61.5
48.5
58.0
39.2
42.7
42.6
58.0
56.6
57.3
52.2
56.6
44.4
48.2
45.0
42.8
50.4
53.4
55.4
51.9
59.0
45.2
43.4
50.0
36.0
54.5
52.2
62.4
44.2
49.0
41.5
45.9
32.0
67.8
48.8
52.0
49.2
54.7
40.8
Final Kerry
51.80 %
42.0
39.8
48.8
51.0
55.8
50.8
56.5
86.3
57.8
52.3
46.5
52.5
38.3
57.0
41.3
54.5
39.3
42.8
49.0
58.3
56.3
70.8
54.3
55.0
47.3
49.3
41.3
37.3
50.5
51.5
56.0
50.5
60.0
49.0
42.5
52.3
36.3
54.5
53.8
62.0
44.3
46.5
49.2
40.0
29.3
58.3
48.5
55.0
50.0
54.8
33.5
IMS WPE
52.49
42.3
40.6
45.0
45.7
60.7
50.6
62.9
91.5
61.9
51.5
42.4
58.7
32.6
57.1
40.8
51.2
37.5
40.3
44.0
56.1
60.2
66.4
55.0
56.3
49.5
49.5
37.6
37.4
53.4
57.8
58.1
53.6
65.1
50.0
35.0
54.6
34.2
51.9
55.7
62.7
46.2
36.3
43.6
42.4
28.4
67.2
50.3
57.4
40.7
52.6
32.9
Kerry
48.76
37.2
35.9
44.8
45.0
54.9
47.5
54.9
90.1
53.9
47.6
41.8
54.6
30.6
55.4
39.7
49.7
37.0
40.1
42.6
54.1
56.5
62.6
51.7
51.6
40.2
46.6
39.0
33.0
48.4
50.7
53.5
49.5
59.0
44.0
35.9
49.2
34.8
51.9
51.4
60.0
41.3
38.8
43.0
38.6
26.3
59.5
45.9
53.4
43.6
50.2
29.4
Projection
(0.50)
(1.0)
1.9
(3.2)
(7.4)
3.0
1.3
3.6
4.3
(2.3)
(4.1)
(4.9)
13.3
(7.5)
4.5
7.3
3.5
(0.0)
(0.0)
(6.4)
(0.3)
0.4
(13.5)
(2.1)
1.6
(2.9)
(1.1)
3.8
5.6
(0.1)
1.9
(0.6)
1.4
(1.0)
(3.8)
0.9
(2.3)
(0.3)
(0.0)
(1.6)
0.4
(0.0)
2.5
(7.7)
5.9
2.8
9.6
0.3
(3.0)
(0.8)
(0.0)
7.3
Exit Poll
(1.19)
(1.3)
1.0
0.5
(2.0)
(1.9)
1.4
(2.8)
(0.9)
(6.5)
(3.3)
(0.8)
7.1
(1.8)
4.3
7.7
6.8
1.7
2.4
(1.3)
1.9
(3.6)
(9.1)
(2.8)
0.3
(5.1)
(1.3)
7.4
5.4
(3.0)
(4.4)
(2.7)
(1.7)
(6.1)
(4.8)
8.4
(4.6)
1.8
1.7
(3.5)
(0.3)
(2.0)
12.7
(2.1)
3.5
3.6
0.6
(1.5)
(5.4)
8.5
2.1
7.9
Exp EV
293.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
55.0
7.5
7.0
3.0
3.0
5.1
0.0
4.0
0.0
21.0
2.6
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
10.0
12.0
14.6
10.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
3.8
14.9
4.1
31.0
0.1
0.0
10.0
0.0
6.9
18.0
4.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.0
3.0
3.6
9.2
1.7
9.9
0.0
Win Prob
87.00
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.1
100.0
83.6
100.0
100.0
99.6
18.9
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
23.4
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
99.9
100.0
85.9
99.9
0.3
18.6
0.7
0.0
57.8
95.2
99.6
82.7
100.0
0.9
0.1
50.0
0.0
98.6
85.9
100.0
0.2
31.2
0.0
2.3
0.0
100.0
27.8
83.6
34.8
99.0
0.0
Critical
100%
5.7%
11.5%
5.0%
10.8%
5.0%
4.3%
1.3%
3.6%
17.0%
1.5%
13.4%
1.6%
8.3%
7.0%
2.1%
1.9%
Sprd <9
179
9
27
11
17
11
5
4
5
20
7
21
3
13
11
5
10
to Obama
4
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO*
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA*
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV*
NH
NJ
NM*
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
These graphs display the effects of
uncounted and
switched votes on Obama's projected EV and 2-party vote share.
?click">Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the projected vote share?click">Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the electoral voteThe Election Calculator Model
The
2004 Election Calculator was developed as a response to the Final 2004 National Exit Poll.
The Final was forced to match the recorded vote using impossible weightings.
In the
Final,
43% of
2004 voters (
52.6m) were
former Bush 2000 voters; 37% were former Gore voters.
But Bush only had 50.5m votes in 2000.
Approximately 2.5m died, and another 2.5m did not return to vote.
Therefore,
only 45.5m former Bush 2000 voters could have returned to vote in 2004.
The Final National Exit Poll
overstated the Bush 2004 vote by approximately 7 million in order to match the
corrupt miscounted vote.
The
2004 True Vote calculation was based on an estimated 100.1m returning 2000 voters, calculated as:
Total votes cast in 2000 (
110.8m) less voter mortality (5.4m) times 95% turnout (100.1m).
Vote shares were based on the
12:22am National Exit Poll.
The
model determined that Kerry won by
66.9–
57.1 million.
Kerry did slightly better (53.2%) than the unadjusted state exit poll (
52.0%) aggregate.
The results indicate that 5.4m votes (8.0% of Kerry’s total) were
switched from Kerry to Bush.
2004 Calculated True Vote
12:22am NEP vote share
2000 Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV - 25.6 20.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 49.7 39.5% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 46.6 37.1% 10% 90% 0%
Other 95% 3.8 3.0% 64% 17% 19%
Total 100.1 125.7 100% 53.2% 45.4% 1.4%
Votes cast 125.7 66.9 57.1 1.7
Recorded Vote (actual) 122.3 59.0 62.0 1.2
48.3% 50.7% 1.0%
Deviation from True Vote -4.9% +5.3% -0.4%
Unadjusted Exit Poll 52.0% 47.0% 1.0%
Deviation from True Vote -1.2% +1.6% -0.4%
The
2008 Election Calculator projects Obama will win the
True Vote by
71 – 59m.
Estimated vote shares are similar to the 2004 National Exit Poll shares
2008 True Vote Election Calculator Forecast
Estimated vote share (see National Exit Poll)
2004 Turnout Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV - 17.2 13.1% 59% 40% 1%
Kerry 95% 60.5 46.2% 89% 10% 1%
Bush 95% 51.6 39.4% 11% 88% 1%
Other 95% 1.6 1.2% 70% 11% 19%
Total 113.7 130.9 100.0% 54.1% 44.7% 1.2%
130.9 70.8 58.5 1.6
Professional associations such as
AAPOR, media pundits and election forecasters never discuss
Election Fraud.
On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown, while it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections. They want you to believe that Democrats always do better in the exit polls, because Republican voters are
reluctant responders. But they never consider other, more plausible explanations — such as
uncounted votes and stuffed ballots. Read more
here.
Apparently, the MSM and election fraud naysayers are unaware that millions of ballots are either uncounted or stuffed. And that these anomalies have always favored a Bush: in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That is one reason why the Democratic
True vote (and exit poll share) is
always greater than the
Recorded vote.
The MSM does not want you to know the facts and assumes that you won’t try to reconcile the preliminary exit polls, census and recorded vote totals. If you try, expect to be labeled as a conspiracy nut.
These are the facts:
a) In most states, total votes cast exceeded votes recorded (uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed). In Florida, Ohio and about 10 other states, total votes recorded exceeded votes cast (ballot stuffing exceeded uncounted ballots).
b) The majority (70-80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. In 2000, according to the 2004 Census, a net
5.4 million of
110.8m total votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted, of which approximately 4.0m were Gore votes.
c) In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59m with 286 EV. But
3.4m of
125.7 million total votes cast were uncounted (2.7%) and 2.5m were for Kerry. Adding back the uncounted votes, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9 - 61.5m.
Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why
mathematically impossible weights were used in the
Final Exit Poll to
'force' a match to the
recorded vote count.
In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the Vote Scam equivalent of the Three-card Monte. What you see in the
exit polls is not what you get in the
recorded count; the
recorded vote is never equal to the
True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election.
Allocating Undecided Voters: Sensitivity AnalysisIn the 2008 Election Model, Obama is considered to be the challenger, since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 60–90% of the
undecided vote (
UVA), if the incumbent is unpopular.
The
State Model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five Obama undecided voter (UVA) scenario assumptions ranging from 40–80%, with
60% as the
base case. This enables one to view the effects of various projection assumptions on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete.
The
National Model calculates a 5-poll moving average projection assuming the 60% UVA scenario.
In 2004,
final state and national Pre-Election Polls had the race nearly tied at 47%. Bush had a
48% approval rating. That’s one reason why the Gallup poll projected that Kerry would win 88% of the late undecided vote.
The
2004 Election Model allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry as the
base case of a five UVA sensitivity analysis. The
base case scenario projected that Kerry would have an expected
337 electoral votes with
51.8% of the two-party vote. His electoral vote win probability was over
99%.
Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote: A Simple SummationIt’s hard to understand why election forecasting blogs and academics and the media, who employ the latest state polls as input to their models, don’t use basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probability.
A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Of course, the individual state vote projections depend on the particular forecasting method used.
This is the procedure in the
2008 Election Model for calculating the expected electoral vote:
- The state projected vote share V(i) is the poll PS(i) plus the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):
V(i) = PS(i)+UVA(i), for i=1,51 states
- The probability P(i) of winning each state assuming a 4% polling MoE (95% confidence):
P(i) = NORMDIST ( V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true )
- The expected electoral vote EVS(i) for each state (win probability times electoral vote):
EVS(i) = P(i)* EV(i)
- The total expected electoral vote EV as the sum of the state electoral votes:
EV = Σ EVS(i), for i = 1,51 states
Calculating the Probability of Winning the Electoral Vote: Monte Carlo SimulationThe Excel-based Election Model is very straightforward as shown above. After updating the database for the latest state polling data, the vote shares are projected. The normal distribution function calculates the corresponding state win probability. The expected state EV is the product of the win probability and electoral vote. The sum of the 51 state expected EVs is the total expected EV.
The final step is to calculate the EV Win Probability. The Election Model uses a
Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. MC is widely used for analyzing complex systems, when an analytical solution is prohibitive due to the virtually infinite number of possible combinations of risk-based variables (i.e. state win probabilities). A random number generator (RND) is used in the simulated election trials. The EV win probability is just a simple division: the number of winning election trials divided by 5000 (total trials).
The Monte Carlo mean and median EV of the election trials match are always within one of the EV summation formula. This proves that 5000 election trials are sufficient to derive a theoretically accurate win probability. The simulation illustrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).
With all due respect to Professor Sam Wang, his
Meta-Analysis program is an unnecessarily complex combinatorial algorithm when compared to Excel and Monte Carlo simulation for calculating the expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability.
Election Forecasting MethodologyThese are a few reasons why Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is preferable to
election forecasting models used in the media and academia:
- Academic models forecast national vote shares only (months in advance of the election) using regression analysis of economic and political time-series.
- The Election Model projects the popular and electoral vote (and win probabilities) based on the latest state and national polls right up to the election.
- MC does not arbitrarily designate states as being “too close to call”; it automatically factors in the poll-based win probabilities.
- MC is a powerful tool for analyzing risk-based systems (i.e. electoral vote models) when deriving an analytical solution is impractical or impossible.
Read more about Election Forecasting Models and Monte Carlo simulation
here.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
