EP Blogs

Which Exit Polls? Earlier or Later?

On this question, perhaps more than any other, the statistical case for election fraud may turn.

The early CNN/Mitofsky exit polls indicated a Kerry victory in Florida, Ohio, and enough additional states to give Kerry a winning 300+ Electoral College total. The popular vote was projected to be a Kerry win with an exact reversal of Bush's "official" margin: 51%-48%. (Steven Freeman, and Parry and New York Times). These projections almost exactly duplicated the final Zogby poll. It is noteworthy that Zogby's 2000 poll proved to be the most accurate.

The later "adjusted" exit polls showed a Bush Victory in Florida and Ohio, and in the Electoral College totals. The national projection for the popular vote matched the official outcome: 51%-48% for Bush.

Steven Freeman's statistical argument employs the early poll numbers, as does the Scoop.co.nz of the "red shift" (toward Bush) between the exit polls and the final results.

The mainstream media, by assuming the final results to be valid, pose the question: "why did those early exit polls go wrong?" Dissenting critics, such as Dr. Freeman, assume the accuracy of the early exit polls, which then casts suspicion on the final tally.

My inclination is to trust the early polls. Attempts to dismiss these strike me as unconvincing after-the-fact rationalizations. One explanation, for example, is that the morning voters were disproportionately female and thus biased toward Kerry. But as Jonathan Simon points out this hypothesis does not hold up to closer scrutiny. Moreover, the gender-bias and other conjectures fail to explain why the early polls accurately predicted the final tallies in the "safe" states and in states with auditable ballots, and yet were wildly off-target (and consistently in Kerry's favor) in the crucial "battleground states" such as Florida and Ohio.

The later polls were contaminated with incoming data from the actual tallies. Thus they were analogous to placing bets on the Super Bowl, late in the fourth quarter. Las Vegas casinos won't stand for that, and neither should we. More specifically, the use of the later polls to validate the election results constitutes a circular argument. As Steven Freeman puts it, a citation of the later exit polls "[uses] data in which the count is assumed correct to prove that the count is correct."

Clearly, there is an urgent need for some very careful and scrupulous analyses of both the early and the late poll numbers. Unfortunately, the polling firms, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, refuse to release the raw data from the early polls. My Google search has failed to locate much evidence of a critical assessment of the comparative validity of the early and later exit polls. Given the crucial importance of this question, that neglect is very unfortunate.

The Christian Fundamentalists, who tell us that every word in the Bible is the literal Word of God, believe that our laws should follow strict Biblical principles. The following item that has been circulating in the internet, raises some intriguing questions for the theocrats.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for a daughter?

3. I know that a man is allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness--Leviticus 15:19-24. The problem is, most women take offense when they're asked if they're unclean.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord--Leviticus 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination or are Christian Conservatives excepted?

7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton-polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?

(1/1/2005 It is now apparent that the author of the first seven questions is J. Kent Ashcraft. The final three were added later. For more clarification, follow this link).

November 24, 2004

E-VOTING –– MORE COUNTERATTACKS.

(From the August 12 blog).

Face it, Rush Holt’s bill will not make it. We’re not going to get federally mandated paper verification of “paperless” voting. The Congressional Republicans will see to that.

If the GOP manufactured and secretly coded machines “convert” every fourth Kerry ballot to Bush, and if the software, after doing its dirty deed, reverts to “normal,” we’ll not be able to prove the fraud. There will be no record. To be sure, the final returns will show a “remarkable” discrepancy between the pre-elections polls and the final results, but that won’t matter. They did so in Georgia in 2002 indicating a probable “fix,” but we were told to “get over it” and alas, we did.

But all is not lost. Here are two proposals that would serve to validate the accuracy of the e-votes, and they would both be quite affordable and available in time for the election.

(1) As the polls are about to open, one out of ten e-vote machines are chosen at random, “pulled” from the polling stations, and subjected to a simple input-output test. If the software is “fixed,” this will show up in a discrepancy between the input and the output. The stations and the machines would be selected by lot and on the spot, so that no advance “unfixing” could be done.

(2) A few polling stations would be selected by lot, immediately before polls open. These stations would NOT be identified beforehand to the public or press. At these stations, voters would vote BOTH by paper ballot and e-vote machines. The results would then be compared.
The “validation teams” would include individuals of both parties, and they would be selected from a pool of volunteers, so that they could not be “got at” beforehand.

If such a simple and inexpensive method of validation were proposed and the Republicans objected, the citizens would be entitled to an explanation.

And we’d all have still more reason to be very suspicious.

THE IMPROBABILITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC DEFEATS
IN THE 2002 GEORGIA ELECTIONS.

The following is statistical analysis of the Georgia Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections of 2002, as promised in my current CP essay: “Why We Must Not 'Get Over It'”. My very limited study of statistics was way, way, back in my undergraduate days. No doubt the statistical. pros will find much to criticize here. However, I am confident that a fine statistical analysis will come to roughly the same conclusion: namely, that the GOP “victories” in the Georgia 2002 election were extremely improbable, and that my conclusions are correct within an order of magnitude. “Close enough for gummint work”

The “lead in” which follows, is a shameless auto-plagiarism from that essay.

There is abundant statistical evidence that e-voting manipulation and fraud were at work in the 2002 mid-term elections. Within days of the 2002 election, the New Zealand website Scoop compared the final polls and the actual results of 19 contests (five Governor, four House, ten Senate). The results:

The Georgia races are particularly interesting, not only because they had the largest post-poll swings, but also because most of the state used paperless Diebold DRE machines. In the senate race, Max Cleland led Saxby Chamblis by 2 to 5 points in the polls. Cleland lost, by 7 points – a swing of 9 to 12 points. In the Gubernatorial race, Democrat Roy Barnes led Republican Sunny Perdue by nine points, only to lose by seven points – an incredible shift of 16 points.

In the interval between the final polling and the election, there were no startling events that could explain these discrepancies. That being the case, the statistical probability of a random deviation of twelve points (Cleland/Chamblis) and sixteen points (Barnes/Perdue) ranges from one in several ten-thousands to one in several hundred thousands.

The “margin of error” in polls with large samples is approximately the same as what statisticians call “standard deviation.”

This means that “shift” in the Cleland/Chamblis race was from two-plus to three standard deviations. In the Barnes/Perdue race, the “shift” was four standard deviations.

In a normal (“bell curve”) distribution:

The probability of exceeding two standard deviations: Two percent. (.02)
The probability of exceeding three standard deviations: three-tenths of a percent. (.003)
The probability of exceeding four standard deviations: three-thousands of a percent. (.00003).

The probability of a deliberate “fix” in the secret (“proprietary”) Diebold software: undetermined.

THE FUNDIES FALL SHORT

In his Village Voice article, "It's the Wealth, Stupid!" Rick Perlstein gives strong evidence that the "values" issue and the evangelicals did NOT deliver the election to Bush. He then proposes that Bush owes his election to the "haves" and "have mores" -- "people making over 100 grand."

His first point is compelling. His second is plain balderdash -- as can be readily appreciated by a casual examination of his numbers.

If "the Jesus vote" and "the have/have-more vote" do not account for that eight million, and no other identifiable voting group seems to do the trick, then one is strongly drawn to the conclusion that those extra eight million came, not from the ballots of qualified voters, but rather out of the "proprietary" software of Diebold & brothers. In a word, the election was stolen.

Perlstein thus dismisses the significance of "the Jesus vote:"

Time to take out the pocket calculator.

The total 2004 vote was just over 114 million. The 3% increase in "wealth votes" comes to 3.42 million. Of these, Bush increased his support by 4%. That comes to a mere 136,800 votes.

And we're asked to believe that Bush owes his election to "the haves and have mores"? Not even close.

So where did those extra eight million votes come from, if not from the Jesus-folks?. Where else but from "cyber-votes."

I await (so far in vain) for a more plausible explanation.

November 9, 2004

IS THIS THE SMOKING GUN THAT PROVES THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN?

You may have heard, as I have several times, that in last week’s election, the exit polls conducted in areas with paper or otherwise auditable ballots gave very accurate predictions of the final tallies. (Exit polls are generally reputed to be very accurate). However, exit polls in areas with paperless touch-screen voting machines gave projections that on average showed Kerry totals about 5% above the final tallies – i.e., that these machines gave Bush 5% more votes than projected by the exit polls.

Those findings, if sufficiently widespread, consistent and authenticated, would give overwhelming support to the accusation that this election was rigged.

The reports that I have seen are widespread and consistent. What I have not found is authentication. Time after time, these reports fail to cite sources and documentation, without which they might as well have as much credence as one of Rush Limbaugh’s “instant statistics” (“from Rush’s butt,” as Al Franken inelegantly puts it).

Now, I’m not saying that “the 5% factor” is undocumented. Only that I have not seen the documentation. If anyone can supply it, I will be grateful. In the meantime, I will continue to search for this documentation.

But now I may have found what amounts to “smoking gun” evidence that the Florida election was sufficiently rigged to have thrown that state to George Bush, and with it the Presidential election.

From a website called “TheSquanderer.com” we have the following charts, comparing the returns from Florida counties with touch-screen machines, and those with optical scan machines. It turns out that the much-suspected “e-vote” machines were in fact reliable and accurate. However, the optical scan machines went wildly askew in favor of George Bush.

"E-Touch" Voters

Approx. 3.86 million total voters
in these counties

Kerry's Base: about 1.57 million votes*

Bush's Base: about 1.44 million votes*

Kerry's final tally: about 1.98 million votes
26.5% more than his given base

Bush's final tally: about 1.85 million votes
28.6% more than his given base

Conclusion:
Close race, as expected,
unaffiliated voters nearly evenly split
between the two candidates

* - based on the number of registered Democrats or Republicans,
adjusted for turnout

"Optical Scan" Voters

Approx. 3.42 million total voters
in these counties

Kerry's Base: about 1.43 million votes*

Bush's Base: about 1.34 million votes*

Kerry's final tally: about 1.45 million votes
Less than 1% more than his given base

Bush's final tally: about 1.95 million votes
45.8% more than his given base

Conclusion:
Virtually every unaffilated voter
would have had to have gone for Bush!
What are the odds??

* - based on the number of registered Democrats or Republicans,
adjusted for turnout

The e-voting machines, then, serve as a “control” against which the deviations of the optical scan machines may be compared.

I have no idea who or what “the squanderer” is. But it may not matter. These figures are obtained from the official Florida election returns, then compiled with simple grade-school arithmetic. (The official Florida state returns may be found here, and listing by party affiliation found here). If the numbers on the table above can be replicated from the official state records, it proves with a near statistical certainty that the returns from the optical scan machines were altered to “rob” John Kerry of half a million votes.

Bush/Cheney carried Florida by 381,290 votes. The optical scan irregularity cost Kerry half a million votes.

Ergo: An accurate count would have given Kerry the state of Florida, and the Presidential election.

Game, Set, Match!

Of course, there were many other irregularities in Florida. However, virtually all of them favored the Bush/Cheney ticket.

The issue could be settled conclusively if the paper optical scan ballot were counted by hand. But the Florida Secretary of State, Glenda Hood (appointed by Jeb Bush), refuses to release the ballots for inspection.

Why am I not surprised?

I’ve seen the official totals by county and party affiliation, and you can too if you follow the links above. However, I haven’t taken the time to check the sums reported by “The Squanderer.” Even so, with the all the necessary official documentation clearly at hand it is highly unlikely that the figures on the table have been “fudged.” I am confident that we can accept them..

If so, that’s about as close to a “smoking gun” as you can ask for.

A final note: Those half million votes are about one-seventh of Bush’s national popular vote lead. Florida recorded 7.5 million of the 114 million votes cast nationwide.

THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF THE PIPA STUDY

On October 21, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland released a report, “The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.” The report concluded that the Kerry supporters were in general, correctly apprized of the facts about the Iraq War, and that the Bush supporters were not. Put bluntly, that the Kerry supporters were oriented to the real world and that the Bush supporters (like their candidate) were living in a fantasy world.

Let’s focus our attention on the Bush supporters:

It clearly follows that if the American public, and the Bush supporters in particular, had been aware of the facts about Iraq, far fewer of the identified Bush supporters would have voted for him. In other words, Bush owes his “victory” to the ignorance of his supporters. Of course, the Bush campaign and the right-wing media echo chamber did their best to perpetuate these myths.

These statistics reveal the delinquency of the news media. In more enlightened times, the primary allegiance of the media was to neither party nor to any candidate – its allegiance was to the facts. It was not a journalist’s concern how the facts might damage one party or the other, and it was not a journalist’s responsibility either to cause or avoid damage to candidates or parties. As Sgt. Friday famously said: “Just the facts, M’am.”

By failing to discharge that responsibility, the corporate media were, in effect, collaborators with the Bush/Cheney campaign.

But you knew all that already, didn’t you?

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Intrigued by the concern of Christian evangelicals about “the values issue” in the Presidential campaign, Colorado State University philosopher Philip Cafaro decided to do some research. He read the Gospel of St. Luke.

Prof. Cafaro's findings concur with what I found two years ago when I read through all four gospels in order to find out What Would Jesus Do? (See also my “How Would Jesus Vote?” )

Three of Jesus’ teaching stick in my mind:

November 8, 2004

As I contemplate the daunting task before us defeated progressives, I am reminded of Henry the Fifth’s charge to his troops before the gates of Harfleur. He might as well be speaking to us (with references to England, St. George, and all that edited out).

BUSH’S ROE DILEMMA.

Now that the GOP Regressives control the Congress and the White House, and soon will have a solid majority on the Supreme Court, is Roe v. Wade a goner?

Don’t count on it!

In fact, Bush & Co. may have backed themselves into an exquisite dilemma.

It has to do with what political scientists call “salience” – a fancy word for the relative importance a voter attaches to an issue.

It is well-known that a large majority of women voters endorse “pro-choice” over anti-abortion. But the reason that opposition to Roe carries so much political clout is that to “pro-life” voters, the abortion issue is at the top of their list of concerns. It is a sine qua non – an issue that categorically requires a candidate to have the “right” position. In this respect, it is like “gun control” to an NRA member.

In contrast, abortion is generally further down the priority list to the pro-choice proponents. A politician’s anti-abortion position is often “forgiven” if that candidate is “right” on other liberal issues. Witness Dennis Kucinich.

But if Roe is overturned, you will see the “choice” issue rise to the top of concerns of millions of voters. A majority of women voters will be aroused, angry, and eager for retaliation. The pro-life voters will be pleased, of course, but they are already on the GOP reservation, so the Republicans will have little additional support to gain from them.

In short, the GOP benefits from an unfulfilled promise to overturn Roe, as long as it remains unfulfilled – like the mule coaxed to move forward by a carrot, always in front of his nose, but always just out of reach. But once the mule grabs and swallows the carrot, he will have no further incentive to move ahead.

On the other hand, suppose the Bushistas choose to prolong this charade and to avoid the wrath of the pro-choice majority, despite Bush’s clear promise and ability to abolish Roe. The anti-abortion crowd may soon come to realize that they’ve been had, and then will depart the reservation.

The unfulfilled promise of abolition worked well while the GOP had the excuse that the Democrats in the Congress and the liberals on the Supreme Court were keeping Roe v. Wade alive. Now they no longer have that excuse. Hence the dilemma: they lose if they don’t deliver to the far right abolitionists, and they lose if they facilitate the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

It will be interesting to see how the Busheviks deal with this dilemma.

A SECRET BALLOT?

When I arrived at my Southern California polling station to vote last Tuesday, I found the damnable paperless touch-screen voting machine. And so, of course, I opted for the paper ballot.

Then I became aware of just how far we have drifted away from the principle of the secret ballot.

Along with the paper ballot, I was given a green envelop, into which I was instructed to place the ballot. On the envelope was a warning that the ballot would not be counted unless the required information was written on the envelope.

What information? Name, address, party affiliation, polling station number, with signature required.

If that is a secret ballot, then George Bush is an honest politician, and a uniter, not a divider.

And yet, I’ve heard not a word of protest about this.

During the Fascist rule of Mussolini, the ballots of Il Duce's party were printed in the red, white and green of the Italian flag. All others were in plain white. The voters then signed in and picked up their chosen ballot in plain sight of the officials. Surprisingly, the overwhelming number selected the colored ballots.

THE PROFESSOR HITS THE BULLS-EYE.

Every now and then, someone makes a simple remark that puts things into clear perspective – that pushes the “Aha!” button – that turns on the cognitive light bulb.

Princeton Philosopher Peter Singer did just that on Al Franken’s radio show a couple of weeks ago, when he said:

Wow! What in insight!

To the regressive, then, “evil” is an independent force, like gravity or electricity – a “thing.” Thus it is something that one can “go to war” against.

To the progressive, “evil” is a quality that is found found in particulars – “evil” persons, “evil” doctrines, “evil” governments, “evil” policies.

Which conception of “evil” is best conceived to engender practical and effective policies to improve the human condition?

Don’t ask me! Far better that you think it over yourselves.

(I don’t call myself “The Gadfly” for nothin’).

www.crisispapers.org

Ernest Partridge's Blog

November 28, 2004

LIFE IN THE FUNDIES' THEOCRACY

November 24, 2004

November 9, 2004

November 8, 2004

More Ernest Partridge Blogs

2004

April-May

June

July

August

September

October

November

2005

February

March

May-November

2006

2007

Home | Crisis Papers Blogs | Best of the Web | Dissenting Internet | Features | Contact Us