This! This! This all day long. Without comment

[BzaDem]

102. You are confusing "exit polls" with "statistics". Exit polls use statistics, but a problem with

exit polls does not necessarily imply a problem with statistics (and does not necessarily imply fraud).

Here's an analogy. Computers require electricity to run. But if there is a problem with my computer, that doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem with my electricity, or a problem with the physical laws governing electricity. It also does not imply sabatoge. The electricity could be fine, and the problem could be elsewhere. In fact, one would look pretty silly if they immediately jumped to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is a change of the laws of physics surrounding the computer, or immediately jumped to the conclusion that the problem is sabatoge.

Likewise, if your immediate conclusion when exit polls are off is to assume either statistics no longer apply, or that there was fraud, a re-evaluation of the thought process that led to such a conclusion may be in order.

As a sanity check, exit polls had Gore winning Alabama and Texas. Do you think those were stolen?

Assuming you acknowledge that Gore didn't win Alabama or Texas (or many other states the exit polls had him winning, that he lost by a comfortable margin and that no one expected him to win), it makes sense to dig deeper to examine why the exit polls might be off.

One possible reason might be that exit polls in this country are not conducted to determine the winner. That is not what the exit pollsters claim their data will do, and it is not what they design their surveys to do. A survey that aimed to verify the winner would involve much more funding, many more interviewers, and many more polling places selected for interviews. And even then, certain types of differential non-response bias cannot be corrected for unless known in advance (which is often not the case).

As for why exit polls are supposedly spot on in other countries, this is partly a myth that continues to be perpetuated without critical examination. For example, the 2015 UK general election resulted in Tories gaining a majority, which the exit polls did not predict. In fact, they even have a name for this effect, going back many elections: the shy-Tory voter. For another example, the media's projections on election night in France this year were more or less correct, and people continue to cite this as an example of exit polls being accurate. But looking just a bit behind the curtain, one would discover that these were not just exit polls, but included a full hour of real results from polling places that closed earlier than other polling places still open. The reason the projections were not released from exit polls data alone is that no one reasonably expects the raw unadjusted exit poll data to be accurate with high confidence.

This is not to say exit polls aren't *better* in some other countries in some elections. Exit polls in other countries are often better funded, conducted with many more interviewers in many more precincts speaking with many more (and more representative) voters. If you would like more details on the differences between exit polls in the US and other countries, this is a pretty good resource:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html