Response Optimizer analysis of State Exit Polls

[TruthIsAll]

The following Exit Poll Optimizer analysis is based on
individual state exit poll response rates, recorded votes and
polling percentages. Prior optimizer analyses was based on
1250 precincts categorized according to precinct partisanship.

The primary objective in this analysis is to determine if
Kerry/Bush response ratios (K/B) for individual states
(categorized in five High Bush to High Kerry groups) matched
the prior precinct based optimizer analysis which produced
decreasing K/B ratios from High Bush to High Kerry precincts. 

The state optimizer produced similar results: state
partisanship K/B ratios closely matched the corresponding
precinct partisanship ratios.

States with High K/B ratios: OH, FL, TX, CA, GA, TN, IN


EXIT POLL RESPONSE OPTIMIZER														
7/29/05 7:05 PM														
														
Given: 										
1- Bush 2-party vote (51.24%)	
2- State exit poll response	
3- State exit poll deviation 														
														
Determine:			
1- Kerry exit poll - aggregate and state	
2- K/B (alpha) - aggregate and state
3- Summary group totals, averages and medians
		
	2-PTY	TOTAL	2-PTY	TOTAL										
	PCT	COUNT	VOTE	PCT										
Kerry 	48.76%	48.28%	59,028	48.28%										
Bush	51.24%	50.73%	62,028	50.73%										
Total	100.0%	121,056	 122,267										
														
EXIT POLL														
Kerry 	50.51%	50.01%	61,141	50.01%										
Diff	-1.75%	-1.73%	-2,113	-1.73%										
Diff/K	-3.46%	-3.46%	-3.46%	-3.46%										
														
Bush	49.49%	49.00%	59,915	49.00%										
Diff	1.75%	1.73%	2,113	1.73%										
Diff/B	3.53%	3.53%	3.53%	3.53%										
														
PROBABILITY of 1.75% discrepancy between exit poll and vote:
  1 in 261,578,650,599

(based on 0.5% MoE for 73,607 respondents).											
														
PARTISAN ALPHA								
Lean Kerry	1.023		NJ-DC
Bush/Even	1.168		UT-OR											
														
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (AGGREGATE)														
Response:	53.28%	
K/B alpha:	1.120													
														
PERCENT OF EXIT POLL REFUSERS
Kerry 	46.86%
Bush	53.14%													
														
State	Votes	RESP.	K/B	K/50B	Kvote	Pct	Bvote	Pct	Kpoll	Pct	Bpoll	Pct	Dev	Calc
														
HIGH BUSH														
UT	905	59.6%	1.26	63.2	241	26.7%	664	73.3%	271	29.9%	634	70.1%	-30	-6.6%
WY	238	66.0%	1.05	52.3	71	29.7%	168	70.3%	76	32.1%	162	67.9%	-6	-4.8%
ID	590	63.2%	1.12	55.9	181	30.7%	409	69.3%	197	33.3%	394	66.7%	-16	-5.3%
NE	767	66.5%	1.12	56.0	254	33.2%	513	66.8%	280	36.5%	487	63.5%	-26	-6.8%
OK	1,464	53.2%	1.37	68.7	504	34.4%	960	65.6%	508	34.7%	955	65.3%	-4	-0.6%
														
BUSH														
ND	308	63.0%	1.05	52.7	111	36.1%	197	63.9%	103	33.6%	204	66.4%	8	5.0%
AK	302	53.2%	1.02	51.1	111	36.8%	191	63.2%	121	40.1%	181	59.9%	-10	-6.7%
AL	1,870	58.3%	1.28	63.8	694	37.1%	1,176	62.9%	768	41.1%	1,102	58.9%	-74	-8.0%
KS	1,171	64.5%	1.27	63.3	435	37.1%	736	62.9%	405	34.6%	766	65.4%	30	5.1%
TX	7,360	58.3%	1.40	69.9	2,833	38.5%	4,527	61.5%	2,711	36.8%	4,648	63.2%	122	3.3%

SD	382	42.7%	1.05	52.3	149	39.1%	233	60.9%	143	37.4%	239	62.6%	6	3.3%
MT	440	63.0%	1.03	51.7	174	39.5%	266	60.5%	173	39.3%	267	60.7%	1	0.4%
IN	2,448	38.6%	1.49	74.7	969	39.6%	1,479	60.4%	1,003	41.0%	1,445	59.0%	-34	-2.8%
KY	1,782	52.6%	1.26	63.2	713	40.0%	1,069	60.0%	726	40.8%	1,056	59.2%	-14	-1.5%
MS	1,130	49.6%	1.06	53.0	458	40.5%	673	59.5%	488	43.2%	642	56.8%	-31	-5.4%

SC	1,600	59.4%	1.03	51.5	662	41.4%	938	58.6%	732	45.8%	867	54.2%	-71	-8.8%
GA	3,280	63.9%	1.52	75.8	1,366	41.6%	1,914	58.4%	1,414	43.1%	1,866	56.9%	-48	-2.9%
LA	1,922	47.8%	1.11	55.3	820	42.7%	1,102	57.3%	855	44.5%	1,067	55.5%	-35	-3.7%
TN	2,421	66.7%	1.44	71.8	1,036	42.8%	1,384	57.2%	996	41.2%	1,425	58.8%	40	3.3%
WV	750	48.7%	1.00	50.0	327	43.5%	424	56.5%	339	45.2%	411	54.8%	-13	-3.3%

NC	3,487	52.6%	1.35	67.3	1,526	43.8%	1,961	56.2%	1,650	47.3%	1,837	52.7%	-124	-7.1%
AZ	1,998	57.3%	1.00	49.9	894	44.7%	1,104	55.3%	931	46.6%	1,067	53.4%	-37	-3.7%
AR	1,043	60.2%	0.97	48.5	470	45.1%	573	54.9%	490	46.9%	554	53.1%	-19	-3.7%
VA	3,172	56.4%	0.82	40.9	1,455	45.9%	1,717	54.1%	1,521	48.0%	1,651	52.0%	-66	-4.2%
MO	2,715	47.0%	0.97	48.6	1,259	46.4%	1,456	53.6%	1,289	47.5%	1,426	52.5%	-30	-2.2%
														
EVEN														
FL	7,548	49.0%	1.48	73.8	3,584	47.5%	3,965	52.5%	3,769	49.9%	3,779	50.1%	-185	-4.9%
CO	2,103	55.5%	0.84	41.9	1,002	47.6%	1,101	52.4%	1,032	49.1%	1,071	50.9%	-30	-2.9%
NV	816	49.1%	0.92	45.9	397	48.7%	419	51.3%	413	50.7%	403	49.3%	-16	-4.0%
OH	5,599	44.1%	1.51	75.7	2,740	48.9%	2,859	51.1%	2,915	52.1%	2,684	47.9%	-175	-6.2%
NM	748	56.9%	0.92	45.8	371	49.6%	377	50.4%	384	51.3%	364	48.7%	-13	-3.5%

IA	1,494	52.6%	0.83	41.5	742	49.7%	752	50.3%	757	50.7%	737	49.3%	-15	-2.0%
WI	2,968	55.3%	0.82	41.0	1,490	50.2%	1,478	49.8%	1,490	50.2%	1,477	49.8%	-1	0.0%
NH	672	44.0%	0.88	43.8	341	50.7%	331	49.3%	373	55.5%	299	44.5%	-32	-9.6%
PA	5,732	46.8%	1.00	50.2	2,938	51.3%	2,794	48.7%	3,119	54.4%	2,613	45.6%	-181	-6.3%
MI	4,793	50.2%	0.84	41.8	2,479	51.7%	2,314	48.3%	2,519	52.6%	2,274	47.4%	-40	-1.7%

MN	2,792	45.3%	0.82	41.2	1,445	51.8%	1,347	48.2%	1,525	54.6%	1,267	45.4%	-80	-5.7%
OR	1,810	53.0%	0.81	40.6	943	52.1%	867	47.9%	927	51.2%	883	48.8%	16	1.8%
														
KERRY														
NJ	3,581	59.7%	0.83	41.6	1,911	53.4%	1,670	46.6%	2,010	56.1%	1,571	43.9%	-99	-5.5%
WA	2,815	53.8%	0.82	41.2	1,510	53.6%	1,305	46.4%	1,550	55.1%	1,265	44.9%	-40	-2.8%
DE	372	57.5%	0.92	46.0	200	53.8%	172	46.2%	217	58.4%	155	41.6%	-17	-9.2%
HI	426	53.4%	0.94	47.1	232	54.4%	194	45.6%	227	53.3%	199	46.7%	5	2.2%
ME	727	61.3%	0.87	43.7	397	54.6%	330	45.4%	399	54.8%	328	45.2%	-2	-0.5%

CA	12,255	50.5%	1.33	66.7	6,745	55.0%	5,510	45.0%	6,830	55.7%	5,425	44.3%	-85	-1.4%
IL	5,239	51.9%	0.85	42.5	2,892	55.2%	2,347	44.8%	2,993	57.1%	2,246	42.9%	-101	-3.9%
CT	1,551	51.0%	0.81	40.7	857	55.3%	694	44.7%	907	58.5%	644	41.5%	-50	-6.4%
MD	2,359	59.4%	0.82	41.0	1,334	56.6%	1,025	43.4%	1,346	57.0%	1,014	43.0%	-11	-0.9%
														
HIGH KERRY														
NY	7,277	57.9%	0.97	48.6	4,314	59.3%	2,963	40.7%	4,655	64.0%	2,622	36.0%	-340	-9.4%
VT	305	53.1%	0.89	44.7	184	60.3%	121	39.7%	201	65.7%	105	34.3%	-16	-10.8%
RI	429	44.2%	0.86	42.8	260	60.6%	169	39.4%	275	64.2%	153	35.8%	-16	-7.3%
MA	2,875	56.5%	0.96	48.1	1,804	62.7%	1,071	37.3%	1,911	66.5%	964	33.5%	-107	-7.4%
DC	224	53.5%	0.98	48.8	203	90.5%	21	9.5%	205	91.6%	19	8.4%	-2	-2.2%
														
Total	121,056	53.28%	1.12	52.52	59,028	48.76%	62,028	51.24%	61,141	50.51%	59,915	49.49%	-2113	-3.5%
Wtd														
														
					RECORDED VOTE				EXIT POLL RESPONDERS					
SUMMARY														
Total/Avg
Categ	Votes	RESP.	K/B	K/50B	Kvote	Pct	Bvote	Pct	Kpoll	Pct	Bpoll	Pct	Dev	Calc														
HBUSH	3,965	61.7%	1.18	59.2	1,251	30.9%	2,713	69.1%	1,333	33.3%	2,632	66.7%	-81	-4.80%
BUSH	39,582	55.2%	1.16	57.8	16,461	41.1%	23,121	58.9%	16,860	42.2%	22,722	57.8%	-400	-2.18%
EVEN	37,073	50.2%	0.97	48.6	18,471	50.0%	18,603	50.0%	19,222	51.9%	17,852	48.1%	-751	-3.75%
KERRY	29,326	55.4%	0.91	45.6	16,080	54.7%	13,246	45.3%	16,479	56.2%	12,847	43.8%	-399	-3.16%
HKERRY	11,110	53.0%	0.93	46.6	6,765	66.7%	4,345	33.3%	7,247	70.4%	3,863	29.6%	-482	-7.42%
														
Median														
HBUSH	767	63.2%	1.12	56.0	241	30.7%	513	69.3%	271	33.3%	487	66.7%	-16	-5.31%
BUSH	1,826	56.9%	1.06	52.9	703	40.9%	1,086	59.1%	750	42.1%	1,061	57.9%	-25	-3.14%
EVEN	2,447	49.7%	0.86	42.9	1,223	49.9%	1,224	50.1%	1,261	51.3%	1,169	48.7%	-31	-3.72%
KERRY	2,359	53.8%	0.85	42.5	1,334	54.6%	1,025	45.4%	1,346	56.1%	1,014	43.9%	-40	-2.84%
HKERRY	429	53.5%	0.96	48.1	260	60.6%	169	39.4%	275	65.7%	153	34.3%	-16	-7.44%
														

[TruthIsAll]

1. THE GRAPHS

State Exit Poll K/B Response Ratios



State Exit Poll Response Rates



State Exit poll Deviations



Kerry Vote vs. Exit Poll

[Botany]

2. thanks

good job ..... the graphs are remarkable

[TruthIsAll]

6. CORRESPONDING GRAPHS BY 5 PARTISAN STATE GROUPS

Exit Poll Response Rates



Kerry/Bush Exit Poll Response (K/R)



Kerry Vote Percentage



Total Two-party Votes

[TruthIsAll]

14. PRIOR EXIT POLL OPTIMIZER ANALYSIS OF 1250 PRECINCTS BY PARTISANSHIP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x383014

[TruthIsAll]

7. The graph tells us that these are the most suspicious states...

NE AK IN MS SC LA NC FL OH NV NM PA NH DE NY VT MA

They are all at or above the Kerry Poll trend line.

[TruthIsAll]

8. STATE EXIT POLLS: Z-SCORE, MOE AND THE ODDS

A Z-score of 2 or higher means the deviation from the exit
poll to the vote is beyond the margin of error at the 97.5%
confidence level (one-tail of the normal curve).

Z > 2 in 16 states for Bush.
None for Kerry.

State	Z-	Vote	Poll	Poll	Std	Exit	Final	Vote	Dev	Odds	Dev
Group	Score	(000)	Size	MoE	Dev	Poll	Vote	Dev	Prob  	 1in	For
											
HIGH BUSH											
UT	1.77	905	798	3.18%	1.62%	29.93	27.06	-2.87%	3.8%	26	Bush
WY	1.33	238	684	3.50%	1.78%	32.07	29.70	-2.37%	9.2%	11	Bush
ID	1.32	590	559	3.91%	1.99%	33.33	30.71	-2.63%	9.4%	11	Bush
NE	2.33	767	785	3.37%	1.72%	36.54	32.53	-4.01%	1.0%	102	Bush
OK	0.24	1464	1539	2.38%	1.21%	34.73	34.44	-0.29%	40.6%	2	Bush
											
BUSH											
ND	1.35	308	649	3.63%	1.85%	33.58	36.09	2.51%	8.8%	11	Kerry
AK	2.44	302	910	3.18%	1.62%	40.14	36.17	-3.97%	0.7%	138	Bush
KS	1.27	1171	654	3.65%	1.86%	34.60	36.97	2.37%	10.2%	10	Kerry
AL	2.20	1870	730	3.57%	1.82%	41.08	37.08	-4.00%	1.4%	72	Bush
TX	1.40	7360	1671	2.31%	1.18%	36.84	38.49	1.65%	8.1%	12	Kerry

SD	1.34	382	1495	2.45%	1.25%	37.42	39.09	1.67%	9.1%	11	Kerry
IN	0.94	2448	926	3.17%	1.62%	40.97	39.46	-1.51%	17.4%	6	Bush
MT	0.12	440	640	3.78%	1.93%	39.28	39.51	0.22%	45.4%	2	Kerry
MS	1.88	1130	798	3.44%	1.75%	43.20	39.91	-3.30%	3.0%	33	Bush
KY	0.50	1782	1034	3.00%	1.53%	40.76	39.99	-0.76%	30.9%	3	Bush

SC	3.75	1600	1735	2.34%	1.20%	45.79	41.31	-4.48%	0.0%	11104	Bush
GA	1.21	3280	1536	2.48%	1.26%	43.11	41.58	-1.53%	11.3%	9	Bush
LA	1.54	1922	1669	2.38%	1.22%	44.50	42.63	-1.87%	6.2%	16	Bush
TN	1.39	2421	1774	2.29%	1.17%	41.15	42.78	1.63%	8.2%	12	Kerry
WV	1.43	750	1722	2.35%	1.20%	45.19	43.48	-1.72%	7.6%	13	Bush

NC	3.35	3487	2167	2.10%	1.07%	47.31	43.72	-3.60%	0.0%	2508	Bush
AR	1.64	1998	1402	2.61%	1.33%	46.93	44.74	-2.19%	5.0%	20	Bush
AZ	1.36	1043	1859	2.27%	1.16%	46.60	45.03	-1.57%	8.8%	11	Bush
VA	1.75	3172	1431	2.59%	1.32%	47.96	45.65	-2.31%	4.0%	25	Bush
MO	1.07	2715	2158	2.11%	1.07%	47.48	46.33	-1.15%	14.3%	7	Bush
											
EVEN											
CO	1.73	2103	2515	1.95%	1.00%	49.07	47.35	-1.72%	4.2%	24	Bush
FL	2.63	7548	2846	1.84%	0.94%	49.93	47.47	-2.46%	0.4%	231	Bush
NV	1.83	816	2116	2.13%	1.09%	50.66	48.67	-1.99%	3.3%	30	Bush
OH	2.94	5599	1963	2.21%	1.13%	52.06	48.75	-3.31%	0.2%	602	Bush
NM	1.70	748	1951	2.22%	1.13%	51.34	49.42	-1.93%	4.4%	23	Bush

IA	1.13	1494	2502	1.96%	1.00%	50.67	49.54	-1.13%	12.9%	8	Bush
WI	0.01	2968	2223	2.08%	1.06%	50.21	50.20	-0.02%	49.4%	2	Bush
NH	4.16	672	1849	2.27%	1.16%	55.50	50.68	-4.81%	0.0%	63547	Bush
PA	2.89	5732	1930	2.22%	1.13%	54.41	51.13	-3.28%	0.2%	521	Bush
MI	0.81	4793	2452	1.98%	1.01%	52.55	51.73	-0.82%	20.9%	5	Bush

MN	2.67	2792	2178	2.09%	1.07%	54.61	51.76	-2.85%	0.4%	263	Bush
OR	0.49	1810	1064	3.00%	1.53%	51.22	51.97	0.75%	31.3%	3	Kerry
											
KERRY											
NJ	2.36	3581	1520	2.49%	1.27%	56.13	53.13	-3.00%	0.9%	108	Bush
WA	1.36	2815	2123	2.12%	1.08%	55.07	53.60	-1.47%	8.7%	12	Bush
DE	2.60	224	770	3.48%	1.78%	58.44	53.82	-4.62%	0.5%	216	Bush
HI	0.47	426	499	4.38%	2.23%	53.32	54.37	1.05%	31.9%	3	Kerry
ME	0.32	727	1968	2.20%	1.12%	54.83	54.48	-0.36%	37.6%	3	Bush

IL	1.61	5239	1392	2.60%	1.33%	57.13	54.99	-2.14%	5.3%	19	Bush
CA	0.46	12255	1919	2.22%	1.13%	55.73	55.21	-0.53%	32.1%	3	Bush
CT	1.94	1551	872	3.27%	1.67%	58.47	55.24	-3.24%	2.6%	38	Bush
MD	0.50	2359	1000	3.07%	1.57%	57.04	56.25	-0.79%	30.7%	3	Bush
											
HIGH KERRY											
NY	4.10	7277	1452	2.47%	1.26%	63.97	58.79	-5.17%	0.0%	49430	Bush
VT	2.95	305	685	3.56%	1.81%	65.69	60.34	-5.35%	0.2%	628	Bush
RI	2.23	429	809	3.30%	1.69%	64.24	60.48	-3.76%	1.3%	77	Bush
MA	2.38	2875	889	3.10%	1.58%	66.46	62.70	-3.76%	0.9%	114	Bush
DC	1.02	372	795	1.92%	0.98%	91.63	90.63	-1.00%	15.4%	6	Bush
											

[On the Road]

13. NH Was a Suspicious State?

It was until the Nader recount. NH actually weighs against the theory of nationwide fraud, because the recount confirmed the official vote, not the exit polls.

I would like to see the precinct-level results for the locations in Ohio which had exit pollsters assigned. I'm sure you do too, but AFAIK they have not been split out by state. On a nationwide basis, the "floating sausage" shape across states and equipment types suggests a systematic problem with the polls rather than the vote. Ohio might show something different, even if it's a small percentage of the precincts.

[TruthIsAll]

15. If the NH 4.16 Z-score is not suspicious, I've got a bridge for you.

Do your homework on NH.

Google 1988 NH primary - Bush vs. Dole.

[On the Road]

25. What is Your Response to the Nader Recount

with our own DU representation that concluded that the official vote was correct and the exit polls were incorrect?

If you can't answer that, you do not have a case. Period.

[TruthIsAll]

26. You did not respond to my question, but I will respond to yours

Did they recount the NH precincts which used Diebold machines?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38000-2004Nov9.html


Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who lost by about 335,000 votes in New Hampshire, has asked the state for a recount.

No, the longtime consumer advocate is not hoping to change last week's outcome in the Granite State, where Democrat John F. Kerry was the winner. Rather, he said, he is concerned about the veracity of the results.


"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," Nader wrote Secretary of State William M. Gardner. "These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected."

New Hampshire uses Diebold machines at 132 polling places. Gardner's office received Nader's fax at 4:59 p.m. Friday, one minute before the deadline. Under state law, if a candidate requesting a recount finished more than three percentage points behind, he must pay for the process. Gardner said that if the Nader campaign sends a check for $2,000 and promises to pay any additional charges, he will round up the ballots and initiate a hand count.

more...

Now will you google Bush 1988 Primary, or must I do it for you?

[On the Road]

27. TIA, You Believe That Exit Polls

were by and large correct wherever they differed in Bush's favor from the official vote (and only in Bush's favor, I might add).

Here is the one state in which a test was made. The results confirmed the official vote. This is not only important for one state or one machine type.

I think what you're missing is this: the New Hampshire recount showed that the official vote can be accurate even if exit polls deviate significantly. It makes it impossible to argue that exit poll deviations must be due to fraud.

[TruthIsAll]

28. I answered your question; you have not answered mine.

Do not bother to reply until you answer the question.

How did they recount the votes on the touchscreens?

[On the Road]

32. They Didn't. It's Irrelevant to the Argument

Your argument as I understand it is that when exit polls deviate from the official vote as much as they did in 2004, the discrepancy must be due to fraud.

The only test of that came in non-electronic precincts in New Hampshire. They showed that the official vote was correct and the exit polls were incorrect. If that can happen in those precincts in New Hampshire, it can happen in any precinct with any voting type. It completely destroys the argument that the deviation MUST be due to fraud.

I don't know whether the election was stolen. There are a lot of suspicious things floating around, but none of them prove fraud to the level necessary to take it to the public, the media, or the justice system. It is very frustrating that the anti-fraud efforts have not been taken more seriously and that the stonewalling the Republicans have done has been effective.

But the exit poll argument is a bad argument. It does not prove fraud. In fact, the extent of the fraud across so many states and all types of voting equipment (the "floating sausage") looks much more like a problem with the poll than with the a problem with the vote.

[TruthIsAll]

40. So, not being able to recount touch screen votes is "irrelevant" to you?

I suppose the fact that the machines have no paper trail is also "irrelevant".

And the fact that the machines are manufactured and programmed by Republicans is "irrelevant" as well.

Did you google the "Bush 1988 NH primary" yet?
Or is that also "irrelevant"?

Just what is relevant to you, anyway?

[andym]

64. Problem with the Nader recount in NH

The big problem with the Nader recount in NH is that they only counted 11 wards. Not a big sample. The wards were picked because they seemed suspicious statistically and contained Diebold equipment.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111804Y.shtml

Here's a detailed statistical breakdown of how the wards were selected:
http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm

Ida Briggs' (partially responsible for ward selection) conclusions here: http://www.invisibleida.com/

So some (all?) of the wards recounted by hand did use Diebold AccuVote vote counting equipment. However the models were older ones that Diebold apparently acquired via a corporate merger

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/states/

Btw, There are no touchscreen voting machines in NH. NH law requires a paper trail-- it's Accuvote, Optech, or hand-counted ballots.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/voting%20machines.htm

[philb]

59. What kind of machines does N.H. use? and how many precincts

did the recount cover? and why the ones chosen were chosen and not others?
Was the recount a total hand count of some precincts?

[andym]

65. For answers to these questions see #64

[autorank]

3. Size matters up to a point...and then nothing much matters after that.

The Republicans had it all figured out.  They knew Ohio would
be the key to the electoral victory so they did everything
that they could to make sure they took that state.  But that
was just part of it. They also realized that they had to win a
popular victory.  Thorough and intelligent.  Hence, the
strangeness of the largest states, in terms of total vote, all
leaning to Bush using the exit polls as the measure of vote
"reallocation."  How could it be that in the 16
largest vote count states, Kerry lost votes using the state
exit polls as a measure, in every state but one (TX)?  Well,
it probably couldn't be; but by 2004 we were well into faith
based elections.

Here are the 16 largest states by total vote
count.												
State	Votes	RESP.	K/B	K/50B	Kvote	Pct	Bvote	Pct	Kpoll	Pct	Bpoll	Pct	Dev
CA	12,255	50.50%	1.33	66.7	6,745	55.00%	5,510	45.00%	6,830	55.70%	5,425	44.30%	-85
FL	7,548	49.00%	1.48	73.8	3,584	47.50%	3,965	52.50%	3,769	49.90%	3,779	50.10%	-185
TX	7,360	58.30%	1.4	69.9	2,833	38.50%	4,527	61.50%	2,711	36.80%	4,648	63.20%	122
NY	7,277	57.90%	0.97	48.6	4,314	59.30%	2,963	40.70%	4,655	64.00%	2,622	36.00%	-340
PA	5,732	46.80%	1	50.2	2,938	51.30%	2,794	48.70%	3,119	54.40%	2,613	45.60%	-181
OH	5,599	44.10%	1.51	75.7	2,740	48.90%	2,859	51.10%	2,915	52.10%	2,684	47.90%	-175
IL	5,239	51.90%	0.85	42.5	2,892	55.20%	2,347	44.80%	2,993	57.10%	2,246	42.90%	-101
MI	4,793	50.20%	0.84	41.8	2,479	51.70%	2,314	48.30%	2,519	52.60%	2,274	47.40%	-40
NJ	3,581	59.70%	0.83	41.6	1,911	53.40%	1,670	46.60%	2,010	56.10%	1,571	43.90%	-99
NC	3,487	52.60%	1.35	67.3	1,526	43.80%	1,961	56.20%	1,650	47.30%	1,837	52.70%	-124
GA	3,280	63.90%	1.52	75.8	1,366	41.60%	1,914	58.40%	1,414	43.10%	1,866	56.90%	-48
VA	3,172	56.40%	0.82	40.9	1,455	45.90%	1,717	54.10%	1,521	48.00%	1,651	52.00%	-66
WI	2,968	55.30%	0.82	41	1,490	50.20%	1,478	49.80%	1,490	50.20%	1,477	49.80%	-1
MA	2,875	56.50%	0.96	48.1	1,804	62.70%	1,071	37.30%	1,911	66.50%	964	33.50%	-107
WA	2,815	53.80%	0.82	41.2	1,510	53.60%	1,305	46.40%	1,550	55.10%	1,265	44.90%	-40
MN	2,792	45.30%	0.82	41.2	1,445	51.80%	1,347	48.20%	1,525	54.60%	1,267	45.30%	-80
												Total	-1550


So the difference between exit poll and actual vote results
for Kerry is a 1,550 million votes in the 16 largest states.

They took Ohio, and, just through these 16 states, they
assured a popular victory.  Adjusting the actual vote (error
and corruption tainted) by the state exit polls, you get a
Kerry win as soon as you get to MN in the total vote count
ranking

Actual Vote  Exit Dif    Revised Vote
62,040,610(-)1,550,000(=)60,490,610
59,028,111(+)1,550,000(=)60,578,111  Kerry Wins Popular Vote

Take Ohio, crush Kerry in the Electoral College.
Take votes, liberally, and you assure a popular vote victory
as well.
The combined strategy removes the risks of 2000 and assures *
four more years.

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

Somebody explain this one, please.  There may be a clue here
to our larger problem.  Here's the "Green" state
Vermont with a huge disparity against Kerry in the vote/poll
ratio, even though the state went for Kerry and is a
"progressive state."  While overwhelmingly
Republican in state control and in presidential preference,
the Montana vote/poll match up is nearly perfect.  
???What could this mean???

State	Votes	RESP.	K/B	K/50B	Kvote	Pct	Bvote	Pct	Kpoll	Pct	Bpoll	Pct	Dev
VT	305	53.1%	0.89	44.7	184	60.3%	121	39.7%	201	65.7%	105	34.3%	-16	-10.8%
MT	440	63.0%	1.03	51.7	174	39.5%	266	60.5%	173	39.3%	267	60.7%	1	0.4%

[lvx35]

4. Need more info on this last one.

Here's the "Green" state
Vermont with a huge disparity against Kerry in the vote/poll
ratio, even though the state went for Kerry and is a
"progressive state." While overwhelmingly
Republican in state control and in presidential preference,
the Montana vote/poll match up is nearly perfect.
???What could this mean???
Can you show that trend at a larger level, or is it just those two?

[TruthIsAll]

5. Here is your trend...

The Beast was in the East.

The Pest was in the West.

[lvx35]

16. Huh. Wierd.

Yeah the trends are hard to explain in any tradional way...You'd have to say more people claimed they were for Kerry and voted in Bush because they were ashamed, and in blue states, and wanted to hide it. But then by the same logic, you should have a bunch of people in red states voting for kerry and saying that they voted for Bush, balancing out the exit poles. Wacky.

[TruthIsAll]

17. Or maybe they said they voted for Kerry but the machine switched to Bush

People don't lie.

BBV machines do.

[lvx35]

18. well no, they both lie.

People lie all the time. The thing is that they don't generally lie in UNISON all about the same thing, that's the thing here.

[TruthIsAll]

21. Well, no, the machines were programmed...

Is this news to you?

In 86 of 88 documented incidents, touchscreen voting machines switched Kerry to Bush.

The odds:
1 in 73,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's 1 in 73 SEXTILLION.

[lvx35]

22. You didn't read my post.

You should try to meet up with Kathy Dopp, at uscountvotes.org you remind me of her...arguing with points I didn't make in my post. But more importantly, she did statistical analysis of the elections, claiming to have evidence of rigging. She has been refuted by most major statisticians at this point, and her work was decent. Its not that the election was fair and pretty, but that approach has been debated, and its proven to be fruitless at convincing anybody. In the end it will be you with your "73 SEXTILLION" vs guys at MIT telling you you're wrong.

[TruthIsAll]

24. Well, my analysis has not been refuted. And neither has USCV's.

Ah, the naysayer de jeur. Always some new ones, though its been a while. I thought all you guys just gave up.

As you are new to this forum, I can appreciate your ignorance in the matter.

If you would care to attempt to refute the analysis, you should start here. There are over a hundred threads you can go through.

When you are done reading, come back and we'll talk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x384064

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[TruthIsAll]

39. Foo, you again? Of course.The naysayers must all be back from vacation.

Thanks for the correction. It's 1 in 79 sextillion, not 1 in 73 sextillion. I should have reviewed my notes. But you caught me. I must be getting sloppy. I guess that means you have succeeded in invalidating all my analysis.

Once again, foo, chew on this:

1) Let's use TFC's 87 of 94.
Would you care to recalculate the odds? Do you know how? If not, check my excel spreadsheet for 86 of 88. I'm sure you can figure out how to modify the calculation for 87 of 94.

2) As I challenged you once before, can you prove that the events were not independent? As I recall, you took on the herculean task of doing a "reconciliation" analysis of these election incidents. So, where is it? Will you document the location and outcome of each of the 94 incidents?

Please don't bother to reply (disrupt?) should you choose not to deal with these two issues.

And, please, no more mathematics lectures. You don't have the qualifications or the modeling experience to lecture anyone.

[foo_bar]

45. the burden of proof's still on the person making the incredible claim

As I challenged you once before, can you prove that the events were not independent?

Can you prove Bigfoot didn't steal the election in CA?

(explained to no avail here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4057474#4082161
and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x369374#378235)

Would you care to recalculate the odds? Do you know how?

There's no way to model the odds with a binomial distribution, so comparing 1:3 quintillion to 79 sextillion is GIGO:GIGO. Excel will let you do it (Excel can turn 61 into 58 with a million different traveling salesman algorithms), but it still defies elementary probability theory:

When do we get a Binomial distribution ?

The following are the conditions in which probabilities are given by binomial distribution.

A trial is repeated 'n' times where n is finite and all 'n' trials are identical.

Each trial (or you can call it an event) results in only two mutually exclusive, exhaustive but not necessarily equally likely possibilities, success or failure.

The probability of a "success" outcome is equal to some percentage which is identified as proportion, p (or p)

The events (or trials) are independent.

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/stats/chap7/s0707801.asp

You don't have the qualifications or the modeling experience to lecture anyone.

Evidently I'm not a persuasive lecturer, but the Stats 101-201 textbooks speak for themselves.

[TruthIsAll]

49. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing...

You did not answer the two specific questions I asked.
But that's not news.
You never do.

The Calculation?
Not from you because a) you don't like the odds or b) don't know how to do it.

Not Independent events?
Those touchscreen incidents occurred in mostly diverse locations.

End of discussion.

[foo_bar]

50. "creeps in this petty pace from day to day"

1) Let's use TFC's 87 of 94.
Would you care to recalculate the odds? Do you know how?

Plugging =BINOMDIST(87,94,.5,FALSE) into Excel isn't "calculating the odds", unless you accept four false premises. You may as well argue that only 42760 EIRS events out of 120+ million voters proves a fair election, or 87 touchscreen events out of 42760 voting events means "Long Lines" are categorically more substantial to a =POISSON distribution. Or just skip to =IF($B$2="TruthIsAll","PROOF"):

Rare Event Rule for Inferential Statistics:

If under a given assumption, the probability of a particular observed event is exceptionally small, we conclude that the assumption is probably not correct.

http://www.ws.edu/MATH/WMAXSON/1530/Unit4/7-2.htm

2) As I challenged you once before, can you prove that the events were not independent?

I don't need to, the burden of proof is on the person making the absurd claim. If you could prove statistical independence (which you cannot), you'd also have to explain away the other 3 conditions of a binomial distribution:

the total number of trials is fixed in advance (they aren't);
there are just two outcomes of each trial; success and failure (there aren't);
the outcomes of all the trials are statistically independent (they aren't);
all the trials have the same probability of success. (they don't)

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/probability_distributions.html#binodistn

[TruthIsAll]

55. Your hubris is astounding.

Assume this roulette gambling scenario (we will assume 36 roulette slots for simplicity, not the actual 38):

You go to a casino to play roulette. You decide to always bet on BLACK and watch the wheel stop on RED in 9 of 10 spins.

To change your luck, you decide to change tables. You bet BLACK ten times- and all 10 stop on RED.

You change tables eight more times. After placing a total of 100 bets at the ten tables, you end up losing 90.

Would you demand an explanation for the mysterious machine behavior?
Would you know how to calculate the odds?

Or would you go home and just chalk it up to bad luck?

Get it yet?

[foo_bar]

56. there's some interesting differences between humans and a roulette machine

Those differences fill up a library wing, so here's a relevant citation:

However, in many surveys, a random sample of households is selected instead of a random sample of persons. Still, each person in a selected household is asked whether or not they consulted a medical doctor in the past year. The sample total number of persons who saw a doctor no longer follows a binomial distribution. When one person in a household goes to a doctor, typically the other members of the household are likely to go to see a doctor as well. Moreover, either all members of a family have health insurance or none of them have health insurance hence all would go for checkups or none would go. This clumping or clustering effect violates the independence of trials where each trial is a person having seen or not seen a doctor in the past year.

http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~rich/Statstories/BINOMNO.pdf

Once again:

So, the actual model is more complex than a simple binomial.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=117559#117635

Versus the sci-fi view of statistics:

One can apply the Cum. Normal Distribution or Poission function (or both to confirm) to determine the probability of rare events occuring by chance only.. There are other models which may be applicable. I found these two perfect and easy to use. All you need is Excel; the functions are built-in.

I have also used this method to calculate the probability that
1- at least 15 JFK witnesses would meet unnatural deaths in the year following the assasination.
2- at least 16 world-class microbiologists would meet unnatural deaths in a 4 month period following 9/11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1777401#1777492

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

29. "She has been refuted by most major statisticians" -- list them

Can you provide the list of "most major statisticians." I'd be very interested. That's quite a claim. I wasn't aware that "most major statisticians" were even aware of Kathy's work. Where did you get this information?

The election was not "fair and pretty" and by the same standards the US applied in the Ukraine, it was rigged. Of course, Republicans (are you one) have different standards for foreign versus domestic democracy.

There is more than enough analysis presented here, by USCV, and others to justify an investigation with robust inquiry and investigation.

By the way, why won't the networks release the raw data from the Mitofsky National Exit Polls? Why does Mitofsky resist this? Why did Mitofsky refuse to show up for the Conyers Committee hearings in Ohio right after the election?

[lvx35]

31. Jesus Christ.

First of all, of all the things I would like to be fighting, you guys rank #3048475895959. Now you ask where I got information about USCV research being refuted. The answer is that it comes from the USVC mailing list. There is a reason why Oberman dropped the story. Has it been refuted forever in the minds of all? probably not. But its been refuted enough to send a clear message to the press: the findings are contraversial, there is no smoking gun that everybody can clearly see. Now if you want me to dig through my inbox and send you all the refutations of USCV's work, I will do it. Its name has been legion. But I don't want to sit here and make that arguement, because I think fraud did occur. The point I'm trying to make is that it has become so contraversial that the media, and the mainstream, will not accept it...So focusing on it is not that effective or meaningful. You will be preaching to the choir, as you are now.

[TruthIsAll]

33. Your "arguement", that it is "contraversial", is pathetic...

Not only do you need a reality-check, you also need to use the spell-check.

Specifics, please.

Give us three convincing USCV refutations from your in-box. Did you read and understand Ron Baiman's (USCV) statistical analysis? Did you read and understand my statistical analysis here at DU?

If you truly believe that fraud in fact occurred, why would you belittle the statistical/probability analysis of exit poll deviations? After all, that led us to believe fraud occurred in the first place.

The exit poll analysis has been confirmed by the tangible evidence of voter disenfranchisement, machines switching votes, new voter registrations invalidated or lost, etc...

What do you say about that?

[lvx35]

35. It is so contraversial its blantantly obvious.

Not only do you need a reality-check, you also need to use the spell-check.

Ooh, a typo nazi. That increases your credibility. REally.

Give us three convincing USCV refutations from your in-box. Did you read and understand Ron Baiman's (USCV) statistical analysis?

That's impossible because I doubt anything I post would convince you, just as nothing the statistical analysis people post ever really convinces the other side...But the idea that statistical analysis has proved vote fraud in 2004, and that this is widely accepted as non-controversial fact, is strait out wrong. If it were, It would be a huge thing, not a blip on the screen of the media. The only argument I am making, is that it has become contraversial enough with respected people on both side to make the whole thing a big maybe. Here's a few articles to establish that fact:

Liddle refutes USCV stuff.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/15/exit_polls/index.html
Bruce O'Dell VP of USCV refutes USCV stuff.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/2/174733/3601
Freeman refutes the theory:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman_pap.html

And what all that means is that there is no smoking gun in the eyes of the media or the common guy on the Internet, there is a debate, contraversial methods, etc. Nothing has been proven in the common man's eye.

Now am I belittling it? No! I'm glad people do that work.

The exit poll analysis has been confirmed by the tangible evidence of voter disenfranchisement, machines switching votes, new voter registrations invalidated or lost, etc...

voter disenfranchisement has nothing to do with rigged machines, and its a very good, tangible issue you can show to people. And yes, observable "bugs" have been recorded in machines. All of this should be used to fix the system. I agree with Liddle:

"Why aren't people looking at voter suppression?" she asks. "Why aren't people investigating the long lines at the polls?" She adds: "I think the exit polls might have seduced people" into thinking that Kerry could have won. But Kerry didn't win, and it's time to fight about the future."

[autorank]

37. Liddle agreed with TIA's math here. It's on one of the threads.

I'm going to find it when I return later this evening and post it as a reply to this message. Believe me, it's there in living black and white. She agreed to that but said she had behavioral arguments explaining the implications of the exit polls. Those didn't last long either. Look at the threads where febble and her friend "O" engaged here and you'll see that the refutations were hardly credible. O'Dell was a transient figure here also, mostly engaged on intramural association bickering, not much on the exit polls or fraud.

I thought refuting election fraud, i.e., stolen election, was not a priority of yours. It is of the Republicans and the in-crowd in the Democratic Party (the 'don't rock the boat' crowd, you know the ones who knew well and good that the State of Florida admitted to electing fraud in 2000 in a legal settlement with the NAACP about a year after the election and, as a result, SAID AND DID NOTHING, that in crowd). So which is your allegiance tied to?

[lvx35]

41. My allegiance is tied to the US constitution

And the principles of representitive democracy enshrined therein. If there is real election fraud, It needs to be shown, and its a patriot that works hard and impartially to try to show it! However, to this point, those trying to use statistics have failed to show it.

I do not stand against what you are doing, I would rather have this conversation be contructive than adversarial. So I hope you will be patient while I explain the term "failed to show it".

Making points in the real, political world is radically different than making points, in say, an academic setting. Real people, the ones you need to convince, have limited time, educational or mental resources to hear arguments. When confronted with the arguments with a statistical basis, its very hard. Many consider statistics weak. (Do you remember the book called The Bell Curve?)I for one find myself remembering things from my statistics class in college, hazily... Right when I have it, somebody comes along with a counter point and a PhD, using terms I just don't fully understand, and I admit that I am not qualified to take a stance on the issue, I label it "a contraversy amongst experts" and forget about it. Exactly like everybody else does. The thing is that I don't take stances on things I don't understand, nobody does. Its also not the case that I don't understand because I'm stupid or uneducated. Its just that nothing tangible enough has been put forward yet...I think this is the major shortcoming. One that should be addressed.

You may not like it, but the above reason is why this movement has failed to show vote fraud to the public. They have made it too hard to understand, to terrifyingly time consuming just to step into a conversation about it. If you want to succeed, you will need to show it in simplicity. Here is an item to note:

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/servlet/Gamelet?req=BjEzO6PaM3E3tzM6bjEFtXM6B3Ef%2BWC3Q%2FmabjF9b9Z1ozM3Q%2FdaK6Frb4H0bA%3D%3D
Its a flash animation making a proposal about defense spending, that makes sense to people. Sorry if it sounds dumb, but this is the kind of thing you need to do, in order succeed at showing whatever you have to show. Otherwise its just too freaking complex and unapproachable.

[autorank]

43. My response

And the principles of representative democracy enshrined therein. If there is real election fraud, It needs to be shown, and its a patriot that works hard and impartially to try to show it! However, to this point, those trying to use statistics have failed to show it.It's been shown to my satisfaction. Showing it to a larger audience requires coverage. MSM/CM is not allowed to cover the issue, not even voter suppression (how much coverage did the DNC report on Ohio get, how much the Fl-NAACP settlement. Please, the deck is stacked (see below for solution).

Making points in the real, political world is radically different than making points, in say, an academic setting. Real people, the ones you need to convince, have limited time, educational or mental resources to hear arguments. The opposition you site to TIA's work are either academic or neo academic. This work on DU is real world. Review it and comment on the statistics, not the rhetorical exercise. If you have problem with the statistical argument, make that point. Rhetoric is of little interest and citing other sources (who also failed to comment on the numbers, it was all rhetoric) is not to the point

You may not like it, but the above reason is why this movement has failed to show vote fraud to the public. The public gets to see nothing. There's an 'embargo' on covering this issue, e.g., Koehler's efforts, the LATimes admitting they 'sort of didn't focus on it,' etc.

Sorry if it sounds dumb, but this is the kind of thing you need to do, in order succeed at showing whatever you have to show. Otherwise its just too freaking complex and unapproachable.Here's my response to this particular add...fat guy who sold his company, walked away with a bundle and his employees will probably lose their pension and benefits while he makes stupid cartoons.

In my opinion, here's when the issue gets covered: when * hits about 36% and people realize that there is no way this guy was popular enough to get re-elected or they decide that they need an excuse for his reelection, then there will be election fraud all over the news and that's not just the internet. Political cartoons, celerity endorsements, etc. are not going to matter at all. It's going to be a "reasonableness test" by the public. The statistics are vital because, if you take the time to review the essential elements, the argument is compelling. Everybody here on a regular basis is a volunteer activist. Nobody has any allegiances other than to the Democratic party and progressive causes (to wit, DU registration). This is where a lot of things start. We're not PR people, leave that to MoveOn.Org. But when people want to find what the real deal is about the election 2004 from on-the-ground suppression, dirty tricks, etc. to "rigged" games with counting to statistical demonstrations of the absurdity of a Bush victory, this is one of the places they come.

Now, take a look at this and comment on the numbers or comment on these in this thread. That would be of interest.

A comprehensive explanation of election fraud--text and key links

or try…

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm

[Melissa G]

51. lvx35, Freeman does NOT refute the theory!

you are citing a very questionable mystery pollster thread. So maybe
Mark Blumenthal attempts to make a point, But Steve Freeman is not refuting the exit poll theory. As a matter of Fact, he and a coauthor are writing a book about it. http://www.sevenstories.com/book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100420010&fa=recommend
Be sure and buy a copy! Are all your refuting facts this weak?

[autorank]

52. Melissa G, look at this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=386293&mesg_id=386690

[Carolab]

61. Is "contraversial" the same as "controversial"?

Just wondering.

[autorank]

36. Do you know Olberman? Any inside track. Let us know.

I asked for a list of the significant statisticians and a list of the "most of" you spoke of and you talk about an inbox. Do they ALL communicate with you? No answer here counts as not having an answer.

You say..." it has become so controversial that the media, and the mainstream, will not accept it..." That sounds familiar because it's a "febble" argument. She said she opposed exit poll evidence because it obscured evidence of fraud on the ground. At the time she opposed this, there was NO significant discussion in the "MSM" about election fraud at all. How much coverage did Conyers get? Just about none. Now you say that stories that have NEVER been covered in MSM are "too controversial." Please, febble didn't even pursue this one.

Nobody started the story who didn't drop it quickly. Look at Koehler and the Chicago Tribune. They turned down his columns and he had to publish the one on election fraud as a letter to the editor. He talks about a lock down on election fraud stories in the "MSM" aka CM (corporate media). That's why Kieth dropped it, unless you can site evidence to the contrary.

You say: "First of all, of all the things I would like to be fighting, you guys rank #3048475895959." Oh really. So why are you here posting so many messages on this thread. Just a "visitor" or using this thread as a "rest stop." Don't believe it.

I supported Clark in the primaries and Kerry in the election. Who did you support during the Democratic primaries, btw. Just trying to see which camp you come from. Also, any preference in the presidential election?

[lvx35]

42. I tried to make this contructive

I tried to help you, to make this a positive and contructive conversation about preventing vote fraud and communicating with the public. And you came back with a new load of paranoid bullshit.

Do I know Keith Oberman?
Did I say I knew him? YOU ARE ARGUING POINTS I DIDN'T MAKE. the burden of proof is not on me to DISPROVE a media conspiracy against you.

I asked for a list of the significant statisticians and a list of the "most of" you spoke of and you talk about an inbox. Do they ALL communicate with you? No answer here counts as not having an answer.

Again you take my attempts at construcive peace and create a conflict. Is it true that Cal-tech MIT never refuted Dopp's findings? You should know better. The work is contraversial, that's why it hasn't created an uproar, just heated conversation. And did I say something about them writing me personally? Huh? I said I had forwarded info from USCV's mailing list send to me, dealing with refuting the refuters, because I tried to keep up with what they were doing.

You say..." it has become so controversial that the media, and the mainstream, will not accept it..." That sounds familiar because it's a "febble" argument. She said she opposed exit poll evidence because it obscured evidence of fraud on the ground. At the time she opposed this, there was NO significant discussion in the "MSM" about election fraud at all.

Thus proving Febble's point; the media largely would not touch it because of the high level contraversy and innaccessibility of it to the common viewer. What's your point?

Now you say that stories that have NEVER been covered in MSM are "too controversial." Please, febble didn't even pursue this one.

No, I didn't say that, or anything like it. Oberman covered election fraud, for one...So I don't know where the NEVER comes from. The debates of PhDs just doesn't make big news...You need a lot of agreement in the academic commmunity to make headlines, even things like global warming. agreement, not high level disagreement/contraversy.

He talks about a lock down on election fraud stories in the "MSM" aka CM (corporate media). That's why Kieth dropped it, unless you can site evidence to the contrary.

I'm not saying the media is pure as driven snow, but I tend to be unimpressed by those who say that they have God given fact being suppressed by media conspiracy. If nothing else, they keep poor company. You have Aryan Nations, saying that the fake holocaust isn't covered because because of the Zionist controlled media. You have the Lyndon LaRouche cult pronouncing that Nazi conspiracy keeps LaRouche from making huge headlines. You have the UFO people, the 9-11 pod people, the scientologists with their thetans, the Hare krishnas with their demoniacs, ad every other wierd cult claiming media conspiracy keeps their truth from the headlines. The media can be corrupt, but trying to hand me the burden of proof on this is foolish.

You say: "First of all, of all the things I would like to be fighting, you guys rank #3048475895959." Oh really. So why are you here posting so many messages on this thread. Just a "visitor" or using this thread as a "rest stop." Don't believe it.

Because whenever I take a reconcilitory tone and try to wrap it up, I get attacked for points I didn't make by rabid dogs foaming at the mouth, who consider me part to be some part of fantastic conpiracy against them...And frankly, its sort of entertaining.

Just trying to see which camp you come from. Also, any preference in the presidential election?

It is my believe that Lord Xenu will give Empress Hillary Clinton divine mandate in 2008, as it was given to Kerry in 2004. But until that mandate is given I would not dare speak for his Highness.

[autorank]

44. I ask questions and you take offense. Talk about statistics.

We have no relationship. Stop being a drama queen.;)

[lvx35]

46. hehe. That's enough.

We have no relationship. Stop being a drama queen.

Keep winning those hearts and minds, cowboy. ;)

[autorank]

47. Keey offering "constructive critisism". How about some numbers.

Any comment on the material I provided. We're not a PR shop here. Tell us what you think.

[lvx35]

48. Argue with this.

I agree with you completely. There is a vast body of evidence supporting that election fraud occured in 2004. Much of it is shown by statistics.

:)

[sunshinekathy]

53. Kathy Dopp here - No truth in this post by lvx35

First, I don't know who this person is.

Second, These vague unsupported allegations don't sound like anything I would do or say.

Third, If USCV has been refuted by ANY major statisticians, as this person claims, I'd certainly like to know the name of even one of them & be provided a link to the paper where USCV is allegedly refuted.

Forth, If I had ever claimed to have "evidence" of "rigging", I'd like to see my statement published in writing somewhere to that effect. Perhaps lvx35 does not understand that it is highly unlikely, given today's voting systems, for any hard "evidence" to be found of rigging, even when recounts show enough votes switch to change election outcomes, which is why mathematical analysis is required.

In sum, This lvx35, is inventing the statements he makes in his post from thin air, and supplies nothing real to back them up.

I don't know about you, but lies really irritate me because it wastes time to respond to them that could otherwise be used productively and I believe that lying is destructive to the fabric of life.

I am planning to write a history of the "academic debate" surrounding the exit poll analysis soon, in order to show that USCV's exit poll analysis has not been accurately or honestly refuted yet, but we also need to reply to the newly released conclusions of the ESI group on OH exit polls which seem to be refuted by their own data, just as Mitofsky's hypothesis was.

By the way, USCV still needs funding to build the system that we've designed for analyzing election results immediately following elections to ensure that correctly elected candidates are sworn into office following elections. Please help if you can. We have not even received enough donations yet to pay for salary of even one person (under $1400/month donations total when we need over $10,000-20,000/month for at least a year prior to the first election we are to monitor to set up and test the system using the 2004 results), so I've been supplementing to pay our expenses out of my own pocket and I cannot afford to do that much longer. I don't have anyone supporting me and have meager retirement savings. We just had to pay to attend the NASS.org conference which was very worthwhile to establish relationships to help states build better election data reporting systems. Now I have to attend the NASED.org conference for the same reason. We really need help obtaining funding - grant writers or PR/marketing persons - who may want to join our Board of Trustees.

BTW, Almost all probable vote count errors that could cause the wrong candidate to be sworn in, could be detected with a combination of independent audits of vote counts in a small percentage of randomly selected precincts along with mathematical analysis of detailed election results. Audits would catch small errors that were distributed over at least 5 to 15% of precincts; and analyzing detailed election results would catch significant irregularities that showed up anywhere.

We have a good brochure now - which could be printed and distributed - linked from our "Take Action" page.

Thanks.

Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org

[autorank]

54. Hi Kathy...check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=386293&mesg_id=386690

We've got a convert!

:hi:

[autorank]

10. The graph provides the overall trend and it's a devastating indictment

using the state polls, which are great. My point was more in the "heuristic" category...how the heck did this happen in VT. I can understand why MT had a clean election. They're to small to mess with but VT! That makes on sense.

Where is 59sunburst?

[TruthIsAll]

12. Here is why VT, NH etc were messed with...

The early TELEVISED returns on election eve were meant to condition the millions of viewers to the impending Bush "victory". And where did those first returns come from? Not from Montana, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, as the talking head whores were catapulting the fictional propaganda of a Bush mandate, those pesky exit polls were showing just the opposite. But the corporate media didn't want to talk about that. No way.

Only plugged-in conspiracy fraudsters saw the exit poll numbers morph from Kerry to Bush after midnight. Their lying eyes saw the theft of the century right there on CNN. But they were smart enough to see what was happening, so they saved the National Exit Poll screenshots and downloaded the final 12:22am STATE exit poll data from the Net.

The rest is history.

[autorank]

30. "Conditioning" ... now there is our "behavioral argument"...

...par excellence. Remember those "behavioral arguments" that were the last ditch prop for "reluctant Bush responder" (rBr). Thanks for pointing this out. It's the dog that barked, but comparing TV media and with dogs is really unfair to dogs.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Melissa G]

11. Kick for TIA! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

19. I understand why you say, "The beast in the east." But why do you say

"the pest in the west"?

Would that be Dick Cheney flying to Hawaii two days before the election--dropping news turds along the way about Hawaii promising to go "red," so he was going there to pump for votes (in HAWAII!)--and getting up into the sky over the Pacific in readiness for "Plan C," in case it was needed?

(Plan A: Diebold, ES&S. Plan B: Ohio. Plan C: If all else fails, west coast terrorist alert and shutdown of the vote in the large urban areas.) (Cheney's plane in trouble over the Pacific? Bomb on board? A "North Korean" missile aimed at it, that has to be diverted to San Francisco?) (???)

Or do you mean some other pest in the west?

Maybe this. Barbara Boxer won Calif. by a 20% margin. Kerry won it by 10%. Fine and good. Maybe incumbency factor--except that all of Boxer's edge over Kerry occurs in the most rightwing counties in the state. Go figure. People voting for Bush...and Boxer??? --and only in Republican counties? Boxer's edge--or rather, Kerry's deficit--doesn't seem to correlate with voting systems, but rather with Republican control of the county. This phenomenon does not occur in any of the Democratic counties, where Boxer and Kerry are about even. So, incumbency ain't it. That would influence all voters, not just Republicans. That she's a woman? Same thing. Why would that factor be restricted to Republican counties? So, I think what happened is this: A significant number of California voters in Republican counties, probably mostly women, voted for Kerry and Boxer, and had their votes for Kerry stolen, by whatever means were to hand--electronic, punchcard, whatever. Or, the Kerry votes were switched at the central tabulator level, on the presumption that this wouldn't be noticeable in Republican counties. Kerry won Calif. by about a 15% margin (not 10%). Some of the Bush/Boxer votes were genuine--but 10% is just too many weird votes. The switched votes helped pad Bush's national popular "majority." And they didn't touch the Boxer votes because she was a shoo-in, in Calif.; it would have doubled the risk of detection; they didn't need her votes to pad Bush's "majority"; and they didn't want Boxer's opponent to become a rival to Schwarzenegger by doing well (however fraudulently) against Boxer.

The pest in the west would therefore be multiple pests--indeed, a plague: Republican election officials.

Democratic election officials are also a pest, but for another reason--corruption by the electronic voting industry--which I won't go into here, except to say that their more venal corruption helps explain why Calif.'s voting system, though better than most, is still vulnerable to fraud, and why we have a Bush buddy company, Diebold, counting all our votes (or not counting them) with secret, proprietary programming code.

----------

Or did you mean that RNC-paid guy who was shredding Democratic voter registration cards in several western states? (That pest?)

[TruthIsAll]

20. I said the Pest was in the West because...

it rhymes.

Seriously, Peace, you are in another league when it comes to posting elegance and factual presentation.

Are you going to run for office in CA?

There is no one more qualified than you.

[Peace Patriot]

23. As my Irish-heritage husband says, whenever anyone nominates him for

President (which people often do): "Saints preserve us, Molly, they would assassinate me in a cold minute."

[autorank]

38. OFFICIAL NOTICE: TIA IS ON TO SOMETHING HERE. We've got visitors

who've dropped in to challenge the analysis on tangential issues, rather than the statistics. This is the indicator that there is
something really important here that's pressing a hot button somewhere.

Great work TIA! :kick: for Democracy and free and fair elections!!!

[kster]

58. kick.nt

[Carolab]

62. Yes, it started with him questioning the partisanship in Hackett's race.

Vis a vis precinct size--large precincts vs. smaller ones and the "affiliation" of each.

I asked if there was something similar in November's election.

And, I think, it grew from there.

[TruthIsAll]

63. This thread was started before the OH/Hackett election.

/

[Carolab]

66. Okay, I was just wondering if it sparked some ideas. n/t

[autorank]

60. Once again, without successful challenge, the winner!!! KICK

[TruthIsAll]

68. Let's kick again for DUers who may have missed it...

After all, its summer vacation time.

[kster]

67. kick.nt

[tommcintyre]

69. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t

[bleever]

70. Kicking for truth, justice, and TIA's invaluable work.