Since things have quieted down here, I think it necessary to provide for your daily indignation a thesis of truly volcanic significance: that the 2004 election was stolen. This thesis is current held by only three groups of people: left-wing extremists, conspiracy theorists -- and a large group of completely sober, quite competent statisticians.

I direct your attention to the report at uscountvotes.org. This report, 26 pages long, presents a detailed analysis of the well-known discrepancies between the exit poll data and the vote counts. You may recall this controversy erupting just after the election, and then dying out. It died out because the statisticians went to work to analyse every aspect of that data. The polling group, Edison-Mitofsky, released a study in late January concluding that the discrepancy was due to oversampling of Kerry voters. To put it simply, they argued that Kerry votes disproportionately agreed to be interviewed by the polltakers, while Bush voters disproportionately refused.

The people at uscountvotes went to work on the Edison-Mitofsky report and concluded that their calculations were wrong. They published an initial response in late March, then a revised and improved version in April, and have now released a third draft incorporating every criticism that has been offered. From the abstract:



They also note that their paper is written for the lay person, with the heavy math confined to the appendices.

This paper has been through the mill; it has been publicly criticized for months now, and the authors have taken into account every criticism, closing every loophole, battening every hatch, fixing every possible problem. This thing is close to bulletproof. There remain some unaddressed objections, but they seem pretty far-fetched to me. The only substantial criticism comes from "Febble's Fancy Function", explained in much detail here. I confess, however, that the debate over Febble's Fancy Function is so abstruse as to sorely try my understanding of statistical analysis. For the moment, I think that the USCountVotes people have the upper hand, but they have not yet succeeded in dismissing Febble.

The USCountVotes people have requested that Edison-Mitofsky release their raw data, which could clear up the dispute, but E-M has refused to do so. I am not certain on this point, but I believe that past practice has been for polling organizations to release such data to the academic world six months after the election. Conspiracy theorists claim that this is evidence the E-M has something to hide.

There's a great deal of additional information on this: an affadavit from a programmer at a firm making voting machines testifying that a Republican operative approached his firm requesting software with which to hack their machines -- he claimed this was for evidentiary purposes in a legislative debate. The programmer wrote a hacking program, and demonstrated its effectiveness, but the Republican operative simply took the program and the programmer never heard anything else about it.

It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the election counting computers are easily hacked; I believe one demonstrator pulled it off in under 60 seconds.

The detailed data from Cuyahoga County, Ohio, has been analysed to show serious statistical irregularities in the data highly suggestive of vote tampering. The District Attorney there has initiated an investigation.

So all of this leads to the two questions I offer for debate:

Should Congress subpoena the Edison-Mitosfky raw data so that it can be analysed to (possibly) clear up the exit poll question?

Should a federal-level investigation be initiated into possible electoral fraud? Particularly, how much investigative money does this controversy deserve?

I ask all concerned to address this highly partisan issue with care and sobriety.

Should Congress subpoena the Edison-Mitosfky raw data so that it can be analysed to (possibly) clear up the exit poll question?

There are numerous factors as to why exit poll data can be wrong. First, time of day, proportion of ethnicity and gender chosen, and releasing the info too soon so those on the West Coast find out.

We must keep in mind that there are perhaps dozens of studies and findings out there that contradict eachother in numerous ways. There is no way of finding out who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Should a federal-level investigation be initiated into possible electoral fraud? Particularly, how much investigative money does this controversy deserve?

No. It would be money wasted because if even hypothetically there was some truth...it would be buried under the Republican controlled Congress.

But, lets not make some crazy mistake that the presidnetial race was some discrepancy from the rest of the voting. Republicans won MORE seats in the House. Republicans won MORE seats in the Senate. The fact that they won the presidency should really come as little surprise. If the president elected was a different party than the growing majorities in Congress...then something fishy might have gone on.

The conspiracy of election fraud for this election will continue for the sole reason that people have such a problem with accepting that others disagree with their views. A lot of people were sure that Kerry would win because he thought like they did. When he didnt, its a major psychological blow. Would have been the same for the Conservatives.

I'd sure like to know about any studies other than the Edison-Mitofsky study and the Febble study that challenge the USCV paper. There were a few generalized papers tossed out in January and February, but nothing substantial that I have seen since then. Can you direct me to some of these?


One of the minor data points in all this is the observation that many ballots were reported by the election authorities to contain votes for President Bush and a Democratic senatorial candidate. A quickie statistical analysis of this has shown this phenomenon to be anomalous, but no complete study of the phenomenon has been carried out. This would be one of things that could be studied.


Yes, the conspiracy people and the extreme left-wingers will take this position, but what about the statisticians?

Should Congress subpoena the Edison-Mitosfky raw data so that it can be analysed to (possibly) clear up the exit poll question?

Yes, if it is traditional for this data to be released after an election, it should be released. It is, after all, a matter affecting our whole nation, and all of the data should be available for scrutiny.


Should a federal-level investigation be initiated into possible electoral fraud? Particularly, how much investigative money does this controversy deserve?

Yes it should. Not just because of polling data, but because of the voting machines held back in Ohio while those in poorer areas waited in line in the rain to vote (as wealthier Ohioans skated through the lines in much less time).

And the reason I quoted lederuvdapac's post is this:

Lederuvdapac, you stated that:



This ignores the fact that voters chose these candidates through the voting machines, too! And there were discrepencies in many state and local races that actually indicate fraud, or at very least, serious errors, in the entire process.



I won't vote in 2006 or in 2008 on these machines. While I had no problem (that I know of!), with my voting experience, I was in a precinct with a majority of red voters. There were problems in poorer areas. I don't think Americans should trust their elections to companies with CEOs like Diebolds, who stated he would deliver Ohio to the President (and I believe followed through on his promise!).

Should a federal-level investigation be initiated into possible electoral fraud? Particularly, how much investigative money does this controversy deserve?
Any federal money channeled into election "fraud" investigation would merely being throwing red meat to the Democratic base. It would be politically tainted, suspect, and never yield anything useful. (see 9/11 commission)

While I understand the skepticism of these particular statisticians and this particular study, I think it's compelling that this is seen as something unique to the 2004 presidential election (i.e., "this has never happened before").

For instance, the Washington Post noted that the results for the 2004 exit poll vs. reality were an exact parallel of the 1992 election.

Here is a GIANT PDF file in which CNN analyzes the exit poll vs. reality data for the 2000 election. Highlights (from pg. 45) show some states which were massively overstating Gore votes vs. Bush. Notably some "battleground" states in here.


More questions as to the accuracy of the National Exit Poll people themselves, given well before the 2004 election (from New York Times):


The study's conclusions:

1. No. Doesn't congress have more important issues to deal with than the incompetence of polling institutions?

2. No. The elections are held in the manner that is proscribed by law. There were observers on both sides of the political aisle. In particular, the Kerry campaign had thousands of lawyers poised to pounce if any "hanky panky" was seriously alleged. They didn't.

If polling organizations want to improve their credibility, they should examine their own raw data to determine where their models went off the rails. This is not a job to be funded by taxpayer money.

Three factors need to be taken into account in considering the value of this information. First, the mistakes of past exit polls have formed the basis for continuing improvements in the methodology. The field of exit polling didn't have much money behind it until the 70s, when television networks decided that they were willing to pay for that information. The field has improved dramatically since then. Moreover, they have expanded the size of their polling samples over the years.

Second, the proper basis of comparison is not one or two election campaigns, but the entire base of data from all election campaigns. For example, if I express surprise at a 24-pound cat, and you dismiss my suprise with the observation that you once saw a 24-pound cat, you're off the mark. More useful would be a distribution of all the weights of lots of cats; that would permit us to say, "Gosh, only one cat in a thousand weighs as much as 24 pounds. This is certainly a strange cat!" In the same way, our experience with thousands of elections shows that exit polling is generally accurate to well under 1%. A discrepancy of 5%, which is what we obtained in this election, is so far from the mean that it constitutes a statistically significant exception.

Third, the same exit polls that had such a huge discrepancy on the presidential vote were remarkably close on senate and House races. If there were some methodological flaw in the exit polling, why did it express itself only in the presidential race?



Allow me to provide some additional quotes from the same study, these from Mitofsky and Lenski (the quote you provided was from the primary authors of the study):



There follow four specific recommendations for improving the reliability of their predictions. They note:



Actually, the point of the study is that the polling institution was not incompetent, that in fact the error may have occurred in the vote counting, not the exit polling. What the study I quoted demonstrated is that there is no explanation for the discrepancy other than fraud.

A more significant response to your question is to consider the hypothesis that the election was fraudulently modified. At present, we have solid indications that this hypothesis might be correct. If it were correct, then would not the identification of this problem be a matter of paramount concern for the entire nation?



Actually, there are thousands of documented cases of procedural irregularities and outright violations of the law in the 2004 election.

Lastly, I'd like to put a challenge to carlitoswhey and LordHelmet: is your reasoning in this matter completely objective? Would you truly be so dismissive if Senator Kerry had squeaked through on a close vote that had a great many irregularities associated with it? In Washington State, there is even now a controversy regarding the 2004 election, because the Democratic candidate squeaked through on a few hundred votes. The Republican candidate is contesting the result. Do you condemn his efforts?

The results speak for themselves. The polling institutions got it wrong. Exit polls are based on sampling theory. They don't represent the entire population if the assumptions made by the model are incorrect as they clearly were in this case. The real question that I have is were the polling institutions merely incompetent or did they have an agenda to bias the election by releasing incorrect exit polling before the polls closed??



Prove it.



Your premise is false. There were no documented cases of "irregularities" that could erase the Bush margin of victory in ANY case.

And, in the case of Washington, yes I absolutely support the GOP effort there. There is no way the governor of that state should be elected on the basis of votes from convicted felons and dead people.

No, that's false. Strictly speaking, all we know is that one measuring instrument -- the vote count -- yielded one result and another measuring instrument -- the exit polls -- yielded another result. Inasmuch as the vote count is based on a larger and more carefully selected sample, we would normally resolve the discrepancy by dismissing the results of the exit polls. However, when careful examination of the exit poll data demonstrates, as it has in this case, that there is no logical reason to dismiss the exit poll results, then we are left with a logical dilemma: which of the two measuring instruments to believe? This dilemma can only be resolved by further investigation. That is the point of this debate. You are denying that any dilemma exists; your denial rests on a categorical dismissal of the exit poll data. Can you provide any reasoning to support your dismissal? Have you any criticisms of the statistical study I linked to?


Gladly:
The Century Foundation
Conyers Report
National Research Commission on Elections and Voting
Common Cause
People for the American Way
National Voting Rights Institute
Black Box Voting
Voters Unite


Please consult some of the links provided immediately above documenting numerous electoral irregularities.


Then it would appear that your judgment here is based on partisanship rather than principle.

I asked for proof, not links to far left web pages. John Conyers? lol. I live in Michigan and am FULLY aware of that guy. People for the America Way? Why did you leave out moveon.org and michaelmoore.com??

I would accomplish the same thing if you asked me to prove that evolution (which I happen to agree with) was false and I gave you a link to Jerry Falwell's website.

OK, since you're going to base your case on the political leanings of the sources, you must be consistent and explain why you think that Common Cause, The Century Foundation, and The National Research Commission on Elections and Voting are all far left organizations undeserving of serious consideration.

Because some people didn't tell the truth when asked about their vote for President? In all the discussions on this issue, this simple premise doesn't seem to get discussed...probably because it removes the issue. Remember when they used entry polls? Results were way off...even though these people were asked how they were going to vote right on their way into the voting place. Did they have some epiphany on their way through the door? Not likely. How people vote, and how people say they voted, are often two different things. Why the discrepancy then between Presidential polling, and polling for lesser offices? Because people weren't as leery discussing their vote for the latter. Until someone can show this isn't the case...further investigation isn't really necessary, is it? As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. If there's some proposed mechanism through which this grand conspiracy succeeded in manipulating the votes, then, by all means, lets fix the mechanism. Until then, though, I think we can devote our time to better things than chasing pink elephants...particularly when those spreading the rumor of their existence are curiously reluctant to release any of the photographs.

I am curious just how long the whole 'They stole the election' thing is going to run? Maybe if more time were spent on developing alternative policy, and less time chasing ghosts.....

You are referring to accuracy "to well under 1%" and I can't see where you're getting this. Nor can I see the 5% figure you are quoting.

From the Washington Post article I linked to before:
So, the "final" exit poll data showed Bush ahead by a point. Or was it that Kerry "won" based on the exit poll data. Bush won by what, 2.5 points? So, I guess you're right - the error is only 1 or 2 points...according to the Washington Post anyway.

But, I'm skeptical, so I go to this analysis of the polling data and response to the Mitosky-Edison report, and I see that the exit poll data approximates a "normal" distribution curve, but shifted one standard deviation to Kerry. I see some of the analysis and gymnastics applied, and how some of the "odds" of this to occur were calculated, and they contradict each other. I note that the links from this site, like your sources for election fraud allegations, lead me to a litanny of leftist organizations, and I am skeptical.

To color my view, even though anecdotal, I note that I live in a big, democrat-dominated city. My wife, a (republican) election judge in November 2004, cited dozens and dozens of attempts to subvert the law and allow non-registered-voters to vote (democrat). This is one person in one precinct in one city, and I multiply this out to Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. I also note that Democrats have been actually convicted (not just accused) of election fraud and abuse in Milwaukee and other cities, and my skepticism elevates.

And when I read the conclusions of the original report you cited, I find it incredible. As in not believeable. Because this exit poll data was apparently skewed, and the vaunted statisticians cannot explain the discrepancy (based on admittedly incomplete data), "The US electoral system is vulnerable to massive vote fraud in the future." They made about 3 logocal and rhetorical leaps too many based on their study. The statisticians appear to have forgotten that there are people in between the theory and practice.
I think that leftists questioning this election is completely healthy. I disagree with their results, but sunlight is the best disinfectant. As such, I encourage more analysis of exit poll data, how it's early release may have affected turnout in battleground states (a topic our authors seemed not to find of interest ) and how early we should allow the media to "call" a state.

As for Washington, I think that this election bears re-visiting, which is happening in the current trial. Today's Seattle Times:
Also, just to defend LordHelmet's note on "dead people and felons" this has been verified - from the Seattle P-I link
Also, in the Seattle Times, we read that the mail-in ballots were certified, despite not being properly accounted for, a general pattern of fraud existed in King County.,seattle times

I base my support of the Washington challenge on facts. I suggest that those who have lost a presidential election by more than 3 million votes are basing their challenge on wishful thinking. They certainly seem disinterested in documented cases of election fraud favoring Democrats (Wisconsin, for example).

Or, as one manhattan resident famously put it in 1972, expressing disbelief about election results - "But I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon!"
edit 1 - '72, not '68. I was too young to remember anyway.
edit 2 - found the 5% figure you were quoting, having re-read the Mitofsky data. But I still question the "uscountsvotes" report and note that the most wacko of conspiracy nuts are quite capable of hiring "completely sober, quite competent statisticians."

It's an interesting analysis considering there appears to be a solution is search of a problem.

As usual, Republicans gained more seats. So the presidential results would be in line with the rest of the election. And this analysis avoids that issue.

But where is all the variable data and assignable causes in that report? Weather, truthfullness, red/blue quotient, male/female, press in the vicinity, age, and the 1000 other variables that could cause projections to be wrong.

The democrats have been getting their hats handed to them for over 10 years and need to figure out a way to win instead of crying foul everytime something doesn't go their way.

I think the election of 2000 alone merits a more effective revamping of our federal election system.

Voters should be able to receive a paper confirmation of what their vote was.

Congress should err on the conservative side in terms of investigation the results of national elections and investigate is there is the appearance of irregularity.

We need to move to a direction of better faith in our electoral system.

Dismissing democrats as whiners is not the best direction to go. IMO we made too little progress from 2000 to 2004 to attaining a system that cannot be questioned.

I give the results the benefit of the doubt and I am far from convinced or really concerned at this point that the 2004 election was stolen.

But if these things can be tampered with they will be. Let's get federal electoral security up to par with businesses that have to rely on electronic information for $$$$$. Secure the crap out of it and make it seem that corrupting an election is harder than nabbing cash from a Brinks truck.

Let's see...paper ballots as currently used don't meet your standard, since no receipt is feasible with current "butterfly" ballots. I could foresee a two part paper ballot, but remember that you don't just have one race. Each ballot represents a dozen or more races.

Also, there is a privacy issue with receipts. As with all issues, there is a middle ground that needs to be met between privacy and accuracy.

Electronic voting methods, while providing the most accurate counts, are perceived as susceptible to outright fraud. I would think that a bi-partisan audit committee could easily ensure accuracy, but as in all things, perception is stronger than reality.

On to the questions for debate:

Should Congress subpoena the Edison-Mitosfky raw data so that it can be analysed to (possibly) clear up the exit poll question?

No. We have two data sets here: projected votes (exit poll data) and actual votes (ballots cast). Only one set of data are relevant to the election outcome. That would be actual votes cast.

What purpose does the subpoena of data which has no relevance to the outcome serve? While the exit poll data collection methods probably need to be improved, that is not the purview of the government, since the government does not rely on exit polls. It relies on hard data.

Should a federal-level investigation be initiated into possible electoral fraud? Particularly, how much investigative money does this controversy deserve?

Again, the fact that two data sets do not match up is not cause for election fraud inquiries. Carlitoswhey has posted that similar discrepancies have occurred in the past. Your "24 pound cat" example is way off base, since the data set of Presidential elections is more on the order of 10 than the 1000 you posit. Two sets out of 10 (the number is more like 8-10 if the 1970s is your starting point) makes the presence of similar circumstances significant.

From the Rasmussen Report:



Just about every poll had George W. ahead going into election day. The exit poll seems to be one of the few polls that got the results wrong. Maybe Democrats should just admit they lost so they won't be labeled whiners and might even get some bipartisan support at strengthening voter access and security.

But, if you insist on exit polls:

www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Strangely it does not give a final total so you have to extrapolate the winner from the male/ female statistics. A little math:

Males 46% of the electorate, 55% voted for Bush equals 25.3% add females 54% of the electorate voted 48% for Bush equals 25.92%. Total 51.22% for Bush. I don't think there are enough transgender individuals, even though I am betting they were strongly for Kerry, to deny Bush the victory in this poll. It looks like the voting machines may have cheated Bush out of .5% of the vote.

Then show me where they contradict each other. Don't just make the claim -- present your evidence.


If you want to make a claim that the analysis is wrong, by all means do so. Don't waste electrons arguing about the people doing the analysis.


These anecdotes are fraught. There are thousands of them on both sides. They are trees in the forest. We can't draw any conclusions from them because they are the tip of the iceberg and we have no idea how many such incidents went unreported. So we need a way of seeing the forest, not the trees. That's what the exit polling data provides.


OK, so you don't believe it. Is that because you have a logical reason for not believing it or because you don't like the conclusion it points to? What 3 logical and rhetorical leaps are made by the study? Tell me what is wrong with the analysis.




I agree completely that any electoral irregularities in Washington state should be fully investigated. Unlike you, my position here is principled, not partisan. I can happily accept any result, so long as it is arrived by fair and proper methods.



Where do you question the report? What do you question in it? The results, or the methods?



Yes, that point is worthy of consideration. But there are also lots of specifics that show wide discrepancies between votes for president and votes for senator on the same ballots. This particular issue needs to be addressed at some point, but for now we need to focus on the main issue: the discrepancies between the exit polls and the vote counts.


The methodologies take into account a great many factors. You can find details on the methodologies at some of the links I posted earlier.


Let's address the issue here: does that USCV report justify a subpoena of the Edison-Mitofsky raw data, and should there be further investigation?


"Relevant" is an awfully broad term here, and in this context your use of it is incorrect. What you mean to say, I believe, is that the actual vote count is all that legally matters, and that statement is correct. However, there remains the unanswered hypothesis of electoral fraud, and the discrepancy between the vote count and the exit polls supports that hypothesis.


The raw data is relevant to the analysis of the exit polls, which in turn cast a shadow of doubt on the vote count. That's relevant.


You are relying on the assumption that only presidential races need be considered in evaluating the performance of exit polls. To justify that assumption, you must show that there is a substantial difference between an exit poll of any other race and an exit poll of a presidential race, and that the difference produces statistically signficant results. Your task is made particularly difficult by the fact that often exit polls are combined: the exit poll for the senate race is the exact same exit poll for the presidential race. So, how do you justify your assumption?

Hugo, the exit poll results that you report are the massaged results. The exit polls showed Kerry winning by 2 points right up into about midnight Eastern Time, then they were suddenly taken down. They reappeared two hours later with Bush winning by 3 points, even though the actual votes that had been added to the sums had changed by less than 1%. What happened was that the pollsters went back and re-weighted their values to obtain results that matched the reported vote counts. That's why the raw data is so important -- it will show what really happened.

Eeyore, I agree with this sentiment. As I have said in other 'election results' threads...I'm all for anything that materially improves the process. There is no valid reason we shouldn't have the gold standard of election systems...and I think working towards such a standard would both restore voter confidence and create some much needed momentum towards more people voting. This is why I point out that this particular incidence doesn't point towards methodology at all. Nothing in this report indicates what should be fixed...there's basically just a rumour that something fishy went on. So, it's not really doing anything but further degrading faith in the election process. That's not really doing anyone any good.

Just a further note on this...if anyone really wants substantive change in the process, and wants it to attain results more people have faith in...the whole process needs to be arrived at apolitically. Otherwise, the other side will, by default, have reason to be skeptical. Crying foul over the last election results doesn't do this...it just worsens the problem. Whether the intent of this study was political or not...the issue shouldn't be with the results. The issue should be with the process.

From: "With Exit Polls: President Dukakis"



There is a reason they "massage" the results. It's to eliminate biases. Or maybe them darn Republicans robbed Dukakis too. I believe CNN has already analyzed the exit polls and used scientific methods to get the correct result. Just like in the Rasmussen Poll which almost unerringly forecast our last election.

But what about this (note, an AP newswire story):

http://www2.indystar.com/articles/2/192519-7912-168.html



And this (computer tech source):

http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Report+Flori..._3-5459186.html



And this (originaly a Boston Globe story):

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120204Y.shtml



I'm still looking in vain for credible stories of machine (optiscan included) error that favored Kerry. If the errors were random and innocent, around half of the errors would have favored Kerry, not Bush.

And this is interesting:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/...on-Mitofsky.pdf


Note, the next point made is that the Edison/Mitofsky researchers never even considered voter fraud, and so did no analysis based on the possibility. Now, I'm not a scientist by any means, but isn't it erroneous to fail to test a hypothisis that logically would account for the event being examined? Don't all reasonable hypothesis have to be ruled out before one can be decided upon?

We can't fix problems that we refuse to recognize. This study attempts to identify a problem. That's just the first step. Next, we need to investigate it. If it pans out, then we take action.

I'd like to step back and make some basic observations here. Every single conservative (I believe) has rejected the suggestion of further investigation. Every single conservative has denied any validity to the study. How many conservatives actually read the study? More important, how many actually understood it? I have to admit, even with my extensive background in statistics, I found it a tough task ploughing through that thing.

Here's the real issue: it is extremely unlikely that anybody in this discussion fully understands the study, and unlikely that many of those rejecting it have any sound basis for rejecting it. I believe -- but cannot prove -- that most of those rejecting the study do so because of its result, not its validity. That study could be endorsed by 95% of the working statisticians in this country and still they'd reject it. One chap quoted Mark Twain's old saw about "lies, damned lies, and statistics". I don't think that anyone has yet made the cliched observation that you can prove anything with statistics.

But the fact is, this study appears to be solid. It has been shot at for months by a lot of people, and it has been emended, corrected, modified, and steadily improved. It's still not perfect, but there aren't many professionals left who are willing to keep shooting at it. A consensus is emerging that these people are onto something. What are we ignorati to do about it? We can't really understand it, but the experts seem to feel that there's something solid there.

Simply rejecting the experts as biased won't do -- we don't even know the political leanings of the people who did the study. All of the arguments that I have seen presented here attempt to wriggle away from the central truth that we have a solid rational basis for believing that the 2004 election might have been fraudulent.

What I find particularly troubling is the blatant partisanship offered without a blush. The same fellows who flatly reject any investigation of the presidential election eagerly demand an investigation of the Washington state gubernatorial election. That a person could say such things in this forum suggests that we have all come to accept unparalled levels of untruthfulness in our political discourse.

There's one other aspect of this that I haven't brought up yet: what are you afraid of? A few million dollars and a subpoena could get to the bottom of this. We spend that kind of money on all matter of trivia. If you're really right that the election was fair and even-handed, then an investigation will only go to prove you right. There's simply no fiscal reason for opposing an investigation. The only reason that makes sense to me is that conservatives fear that an investigation might just reveal a truth they don't want to acknowledge.

Your comments are off-base.

What one needs to understand is that the exit polls are a subset of the actual election results. On top of that, the exit polls are a random (or semi-random) subset of the election results.

It is much more likely (in my layman opinion) that the polling methods were flawed than any other results. There have been ample examples of how exit polls for Presidential elections are flawed, regardless of who controls Congress, the White House, or any other institution.

The fact that a semi-random subset of data does not always predict the entire set should not surprise a statistician.

CNN has their own experts to interpret their own exit poll which showed Bush winning. The vast majority of final pre-election polls showed Bush winning. The election Bush won. Previous history shows exit polls are biased to the Democrats. How did these so-called experts explain the Dukakis result in '88.

How exactly would I (or you) discount this analysis? We are not statisticians, we do not have the data. We have common sense and a working knowledge of statistics and mathmatics. But nonetheless.

My reasons for skepticism:

Someone named Febble has disproved the disproof of the data. I have no reason to disbelieve Febble nor uscountvotes.org. I've given it a look, and compared to the study you posted, I find it more readable and credible, but the whole exercise is pretty arcane.

I have never seen a normal distribution curve shifted one standard deviation to the left, which leaves me shaking my head. Especially since the authors tell me that "the vote simulation is new and not refined yet. It also assumes a normal distribution of precincts." So, they assume a normal distribution, then go on to analyze and make conclusions given a normal distribution.

In their defense, they "assumed" because they don't have the raw data. This data, is of course proprietary to the pollsters, and other pollsters may have ulterior motives in getting their hands on this data, no? Is this not a lucrative project for a researcher?

They also claim that they will publish data needed to support their claims, but the link is dead. see here

As DaytonRocker notes, they can't explain the uniform response bias theory but they did not perform cluster analysis or overlay any other type of socio- or demo-graphic analysis, (like Claritas clusters or Spectra data). You point us to other links, but I point back - this was not explained by uscountvotes. They only looked at the binary - Kerry v. Bush - dataset within a given precinct, which leaves me lacking for other likely explanations. No multivariate analysis of rich / poor, white / black, rain / sun, media consumption patterns, etc. For all I know, the lack of response to pollsters correlated 100% with a factor that this study did not consider.

They assumed voter fraud because their model could not reconcile the exit poll data with the actual election results. This is bad science. It's as if a meterologist predicted a sunny day. When a thunderstorm showed up, his model cannot explain it. Therefore, Vlad Putin must have seeded the clouds. It's a leap.

Additionally, these impartial, sober statisticians include some highly partisan language in their conclusions, chiding us to do better and clinging to "vote embezzlement" theories which are "highly plausible." I see nothing in this study that demonstrates plausibility for claims of "vote embezzlement" whatever that is.

The electrons wasted are those broadcasting theories about long lines in "minority precincts" and other such conspiracies. You act as if this is some hypothetical exercise, but indeed it is quite real and therefore not a neutral proposition given some set of facts. It is impossible to debate some one particular specific fact without taking into account the environment and motive for this fact coming to light - the hypothesis that there was massive vote fraud in the 2004 presidential election.
1 - The exit polling data were wrong.
2 - Why are these anecdotes irrelevant, the convictions for slashing Republican tires irrelevent, but unsubstantiated claims (anecdotes) of minority disenfranchisement are somehow relevant? Because they come from Conyers?


My skepticism is only partisan in that we are discussing a partisan situation. Your academic dispassion, feigned or otherwise, is not shared by anyone putting forth the same argument as yourself, so it's hard to take on its face. God bless you for supporting the Washington inquiry. I would support more investigations if they weren't turned into sideshows by the politicians involved.


I see nowhere in the Constitution where they have the right to supoena data from a polling firm to help support the theories of other pollsters.


"When did you stop beating your wife" comes to mind. I have a theory, a hypothesis. Congress must therefore supoena data so I may fully investigate. Pay no attention to the partisan rancor behind the curtain.


You're reaching here. We're comparing apples to apples - presidential exit poll results vs. presidential election results. The words "congress" and "senate" did not appear in the uscountvotes document, so I'm not sure which numbers you're referring to here.

And I should trust CNN why?

They changed their exit poll results for Ohio. After the polls were closed! Luckily, someone got a screenshot:

Before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/image...poll1.gif?IMAGE

After:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/image...poll2.gif?IMAGE

Notice the difference between voters polled is 57. If all 57 votes went to Bush, according to the revised exit poll, it still would not account for the percentage differences when the total number of people polled (with the 57 added) was 2,020.

Bush gained six percentage points thanks to these last 57 people polled, and Kerry lost seven percentage points thanks to the same 57.

But the percentage increase between 1963 and 2020 is just under 3 percentage points. I'll be generous and call it three. So Bush could not possibly have gotten a jump of six points, with Kerry losing seven! It doesn't add up!

Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh gave a little pep talk to his discouraged listeners about the exit polls. He told his election day audience (I was listening because it's good to know your enemy), that the exit polls would favor Kerry during the day, but toward the end, the exit pollsters would alter their results so as not to look silly like they did in 2000!

Now how did Rush know this would happen?

(I hope someone else on this board heard him say this, I haven't been able to find a trace of his comments online anywhere!)

Well, except on the Freeper board:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...s?q=1&&page=101




Supposedly CNN switched its final tally in Florida, too, with a similar mathematical error, but I haven't seen screen shots for that one.

carlitoswhey, I am pleased to see that you are now admitting the obvious: neither you nor I is in any position to determine the overall reliability of this study. We both look it over, find some things that are interesting, but the bottom line is, this is pretty heavy statistical analysis and we can't decide. You did take some shots at it:

No, their central piont is that there exists no good explanation for the discrepancies. They point to electoral fraud as one explanation that has not yet been discounted. It could also have been the aurora borealis, but the electoral fraud hypothesis seems more plausible than the aurora borealis hypothesis. They do not assume the electoral fraud theory, they conclude that it's left standing after they've shot everything else down.


You're right on this point: they have not demonstrated the "high plausibility" of the electoral fraud hypothesis. They have knocked just about every other hypothesis out of the picture, and so the electoral fraud hypothesis starts to look more interesting, but their study itself does nothing to advance the electoral fraud hypothesis.


That's a conclusion, not an analysis.


I have made no claims with respect to the relevance of these anecdotes; my observation is that it is impossible to draw useful conclusions about the election as a whole from these events.


Um, so you're only partisan when considering partisan issues, and you're completely nonpartisan when discussion nonpartisan issues? While I am relieved to learn that you do not consider the words of Tom DeLay while choosing a brand of table sugar, I would hope that partisanship would not color your judgment on any issue.


Well, tell that to the others when they speak up. But for now, let's stick with the issue here.


On this point, I agree that there is a basis for reservations about investigations. If an investigation could be carried out far away from Washington by nonpartisan experts, we might be able to accomplish something. But doing it the same way that the Clinton investigation was carried out is simply too divisive to accomplish anything worthwhile.


If they're investigating a possible crime committed on a national level, they certainly do.


If the hypothesis had not already been demonstrated to have some substance by a great deal of effort, your point would be well taken. But the fact is, the data have been squeezed really hard, they do show something suspicious, and releasing the raw data would clear matters up. Moreover, this raw data has no proprietary value to Edison-Mitofsky at this time. In the past, they have released such information to the public domain after six months. (I still can't find the documentation on this point, though). The only reason I can imagine for E/M to continue holding onto it is to preserve their reputation from the stains it might suffer should an analysis of the raw data reveal major bias in their treatment of the data.


Those numbers appeared in some of the many other studies. I'll try to find them. If I can't, I'll retract the point.

Final polls from RealClearPolitics.




History clearly shows the late pre-election polls are superior to the exit polls. The election results were no surprise to anyone who followed the pre-election polling. CNN also declared Bush the winner. Once again, pre-election polls gave the election to Bush and so did the, properly interpreted by the Ted Turner Network, exit polls. Yes, you can find a lot of bloggers on the internet arguing differently.

I'd like to see the statistics on that. Are there any?

There is an empty wine bottle on my desk that I think we purchased in February, so it is questionable if I am as sober as you're asking me to be...

If we Democrats could manage to enact a swing to say a 2/3 - 3/4 majority in both houses next year, perhaps we could persuade Congress to look for fraud in last years election.

The problem I see with using exit polls to determine how people voted though, is that we would have to factor in the people interviewed in an exit poll who were too embarassed to admit they voted for George W. Bush. I know from personal experience that when my parents left the voting booth, they would only say that they had cast a secret ballot, and I never heard them once state how they voted.

Should Congress subpoena the Edison-Mitosfky raw data so that it can be analysed to (possibly) clear up the exit poll question?

Isn't the data available for any organization to analyze? If not, then subpoena the data and put it into the public domain. Then get an army of university stat profs and students to poor over it, worldwide, using grid computing to crunch the numbers (if needed). The stat profs would have fun (might even publish!), and the students would learn with a real-world, meaningful problem.

I don't think Congress is sane enough to possibly select a non-partisan team for the analysis. This needs to go up into the ivory tower, where tough intellects can roll around with it.

And what if the conclusion becomes that fraud happened? Fire the Bush people and install Kerry's? I don't think that would do anything positive for the country. No, we want to carry on with business as usual, only more aware of what to look for in future elections.

On the other hand, the studies might show no significant correlation between exit polls and election results. This looks to me to be intuitively obvious, but oh what the heck, run the math.

I personally would be tempted to fib to exit pollsters. Hey, what business of yours is this, and how much is it worth? If nothing, then that's what you get in return.

Should a federal-level investigation be initiated into possible electoral fraud? Particularly, how much investigative money does this controversy deserve?

In general, fraud election investigation is worth the money just to help keep things as honest as they can get in a democracy (oh, put away the republic club). Voting fraud in democracies is an inherent problem that needs to be constantly investigated. I'm not sure how much money this would cost, but I like the idea of non-voting professionals taking up the cause. I'd pay the pros well for giving up their right to vote in favor of better democracy. Where do I send my resume? Do I get a badge and black suit?

Here's one obvious test of fraud: Did any Democrats win in the last election? They sure did, taking over Colorado's legislature and sending one Demo senator and one Demo rep (brothers at that) to Washington. The tyranny of Republican control over the past 40 years was broken in Colorado, a so-called red state. That indicates to me that the voting was at least honest enough to allow for this surprise outcome.

However, I am now worried that the Repubs will be trying to influence future state and local elections in illegal ways. We need to be vigilant, as this has happened before -- from both parties if you look back far enough. Fraud is built into our system just by the fact that human nature allows for it.

Heh, I suppose a Republican might think that the Demos stole the elections for the state legislature. Ah well, walking a mile in someone else's moccasins, priceless.


Sidebar: The state Demos are performing well, using mature and professional approaches to real problems, such as a busted state budget. There's value in a new majority party having to prove itself.

I ask all concerned to address this highly partisan issue with care and sobriety.

Okay, I'm carefully avoiding the statistical badlands and soberly sitting on a verdant hill, overlooking the vast plains, strumming my guitar and thinking, "Bottle of wine, fruit of the vine . . . ." Deer and elk munch the spring grasses down below. It's a happy place

Yes, there are. . Of course the final pre-election polls and the exit polls are available. According to the "unmassaged" exit polls Dukakis won in 1988. Of course, the final pre-election polls in 1988, just like in 2004, showed the true winner.

The only stolen Presidential election, since 1876, was in 1960.