Hey TIA, is THIS what you're trying to prove?:

[Bill Bored]

Maybe you did this and I haven't been paying attention, but why not RE-WEIGHT the Y2K sample from the 2004 Exit Poll question to reflect the TRUE outcome of the Y2K election, i.e., Gore won the popular vote by a 0.5% margin, and then recalculate the 2004 voting percentages, or whatever, based on the corrected sample?

If this is what you've been doing all along, then I say "DUHHH", or however that's spelled. Or maybe it just wasn't clear. I don't recall seeing the word "re-weighted" anywhere. Anyhow, looking forward to your comments.

[RaulGroom]

1. There's another interesting weird thing about the Y2K data

Maybe you've covered this already. But if you multiply the Y2k Bush voter percentage by the number of actual voters in the 2004 election, you discover that more people reported voting for Bush in 2000 than there are actual 2000 Bush voters now living.

This has suggested to me all along that the weighted exits were flawed. But no one else seems to think it's significant.

[qwghlmian]

2. No one seems to think it is significant

because people routinely lie in polls that ask whom they voted for, and usually the lie is the claim of voting for the winner. Look up "bandwagon effect" in the elections.

[TruthIsAll]

3. Until now. Whether they lied or not, 4 million were NOT resurrected

and come back to vote for Bush.
That's just the point.

43% is IMPOSSIBLE.

THEREFORE THE FINAL EXIT POLL IS WRONG.
BECAUSE IT HAD TO MATCH TO A BOGUS VOTE COUNT.

INSTEAD OF FIXING THE NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE 41/39 IN THE PRELIM. POLL (WHICH KERRY WON 51-48) BY MATCHING TO AN ACTUAL HISTORIC VOTE COUNT, THEY WENT AHEAD AND ADJUSTED IT TO AN ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE 43/37% MIX TO MATCH THE VOTE.

IF THEY MATCHED TO A FEASIBLE MIX (40/39), IT WOULD PROVE THAT KERRY WON IN A LANDSLIDE, EVEN IF THE FINAL EXIT POLL NEW VOTER (54 KERRY, 45 BUSH) PERCENTAGES WERE USED. THESE, TOO, WHICH WERE CHANGED FROM 57-41 IN THE PRELIMINARY POLL.

THAT'S WHY IT MATTERS.

[DELUSIONAL]

4. The Undead vote for bushie!!

Night of the Living Dead ... arise and come out to vote for bushie.

New theme of Stephen King novel -- the undead bush voters. When you vote for Der Bushita -- you never die -- you keep voting for the sucker time and time again.

Whoever planned the vote manipulation didn't think out all the variables and probably didn't care -- he just wanted the make it look good enough for the Corporate media to report -- bushie has risen again. All hail Der Bushita.

[Dancing_Dave]

67. In the old days, many dead people would vote for Democrats in Chicago...

Damn pity the dead aren't as smart as they used to be!

[mgr]

61. May I ask...

why would one include Gore and Bush preference in an a posteriori rewieghting for the next election's exit poll? How explanatory is the category independant of party ID, gender, ethnicity, and age that it would carry over to 2008?

Mike

[Chi]

9. Heya qwghlmian, long time.

Do you have any links/studies/reports to back up that interesting tidbit about people routinely lying in exit polls.
If so, I would be interested in reading them.

Thanx in Advance
Chi

[qwghlmian]

12. Thanks for asking - too many people

here tend to dismiss anything that does not fit their preconceptions out of hand, without examining it at all.

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1993_194.pdf

Here is a study done on this "post-election bandwagon effect" examining the 1992 election. It involves two surveys - one done very shortly before the election, which matched almost exactly with the election results - (Clinton: 43%; Bush: 38%; Perot: 19%). The second was done in early December, 1992, less than a couple of months (!) after the election. It asked how people voted. The results: Clinton: 49%; Bush: 32%; Perot: 20%. That is a HUGE shift, completely outside the margin of error, and illustrates a definite tendency for people to lie about the way they voted, even very shortly after the election.

I have seen other studies that suggest that this effect actually increases with time. So TIA's reliance on the "who did you vote for in 2000" poll that was done in 2004 is extremely misguided.

[Chi]

39. We all tend to believe what we want.....

I'm fully aware of that and try to resist it 8)

The paper you linked to seems to have no critique of exit polls.
It actually uses them as a baseline for accuracy of the ICR poll, as I'm confident you are already aware of.
Since this thread is about exit polls, the paper seems to have limited relevance to the subject.

But I must say I am somewhat surprised at the stated inaccuracy of the phone survey poll, considering Mitofsky states the last phone poll before election has averaged discrepancy of only 1.9% (per candidate) over the last 56 years.
Maybe if they chose an election without a strong third candidate in the mix, it would have turned out differently.

Thanx for the link.

[qwghlmian]

40. See post #38

this is not about exit polls. This is about the poll that TIA relies upon that asks people who they voted for in 2000 (and the poll was conducted in 2004). TIA claims that the results of that poll accurately reflect reality. I say that such polls are notoriously and wildly inaccurate. That is what the study was about.

[Chi]

41. Bill seems to be talking about exit polls....

"why not RE-WEIGHT the Y2K sample from the 2004 Exit Poll question"

I don't see were telephone polls come into his concept at all.
If I missed something he said, please quote it.

If you can't agree that the paper you cited doesn't critique exit polls, or, if you can't agree Bill said nothing about phone polls, this discussion can go no further....

As to #38...Yes, I see the 'phone polls' seems to show a bandwagon effect, I'm not disputing that.
But the authors of this paper did not include a critique or opinion about the accuracy of responses in the exit poll. As a matter of fact they used it as a baseline for accuracy, as I previously stated.

With all the reports out there by geniuses, I'm sure you can find one that fits your point of view, if it has any basis in reality.

[qwghlmian]

42. I was not responding to bil -

I was responding to post #1, if you have not noticed, and also to TIA's constant harping on that poll that asked in 2004 who the people voted for in 2000.

Also, as an aside, the authors of the paper did NOT use any exit polls as a baseline for accuracy. Of the two polls that they were comparing one was taken right *before* the election and the other 2 months or so after.

[Chi]

43. hmmmm

Sorry, I don't see anything about 'phone polls' in that post either.


"The presentation compares results of the Voter Research and
Surveys National Exit Poll (n = 15,236) with a stan-
dard national omnibus telephone survey (n = 1,859)
conducted shortly after the election, in early December
of 1992.(2)"

Seems to indicate they are using the exit poll as a baseline, to me.
Where do you see a poll taken before the election?

[qwghlmian]

44. Yes they are

and I misread it.

Anyway. The paper clearly indicates that if you poll people some significant time after the election about whom they voted for, they tend to lie about it thus very significantly skewing the results towards the winner of the election. If you disagree with that conclusion, say so.

If you agree, then any poll that is taken in 2004 and asks people whom they voted for in 2000 cannot possibly be considered accurate. That was my point in responding to the poster who wrote post #1. There is also the fact that TIA keeps clinging to this particular poll in his "proofs" that Kerry won.

[Chi]

45. Thanks for acknowledging that.

The paper indicates that a phone poll done after the election gets inaccurate results.
Phone polls include a substantial quantity of people who didn't bother to vote in the election.
So right off the bat you get people who don't care a bit about politics nor elections, which could very well be the vast majority of people who skewed the results.
I've already said I don't disagree with that conclusion in post 39.

"If you agree, then any poll that is taken in 2004 and asks people whom they voted for in 2000 cannot possibly be considered accurate."

Not true. Your comparing different groups of responders, which would makes the results incomparable.

So...do you agree this paper has nothing to do with the accuracy of exit polls?

[qwghlmian]

46. Of course this paper has nothing to do with the accuracy

of exit polls - I never claimed that it did.

As for the "different groups of responders" - there is no indication that the 2004 poll verified that its responders were actual voters in 2000, so the groups are not so different, especially considering how many new voters there were in 2004.

Here is another study:

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=fd9a177bf7f6414c91ae6c33176387f6&referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,4;journal,23,33;linkingpublicationresults,1:104963,1

I didn't read it. Maybe you have access to better libraries than I do.

[Chi]

47. The thread is about exit polls...

The question 'who voted for in 2000' is on the 2004 exit poll.
All the references by TIA to 'who voted for' (that I've seen) are about the 2004 exit poll.

Here is one, I went back and checked...

"Once again, I would remind readers of another oddity besetting these troubling exit polls: On November 2, 2004, pollsters did not restrict inquiries to the votes cast on that date. They also asked voters about the 2000 election. 43% of the respondents said they had chosen Bush on that previous occasion, while 37% reported having cast a ballot for Al Gore".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x352359

Sorry if you were under a different impression.
(I did not read every post on this page, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

[qwghlmian]

48. The poll that asks about who people voted in 2000,

although conducted in parallel with the exit poll of 2004, though technically an "exit poll" (in the sense that it was conducted on people who exited the polls), is not really an "exit poll" in the sense that people are asked who they just voted for, and questioning its accuracy, due to the "post-election bandwagon effect" is not the same as questioning the accuracy of "exit polls" in general.

That said, exit polls, as they are conducted in the United States, are not designed to predict election outcomes or verify the outcomes, and any such use of exit poll data is problematic.

http://election04.ssrc.org/research/InterimReport122204.pdf

"Rather, exit polls as currently designed and administered in the United States are not suitable for use as point estimators for the share of votes that go to different candidates."

...

"Nevertheless, some analysts inappropriately attempt to use current exit poll results to investigate whether the results in a locale (state or country) are accurate or whether fraud might be involved in an election. A certain form of exit poll could be used for this purpose, but again the designs would have to be different. To validate results in specific precincts or from particular machines, the designs would have to incorporate larger numbers of interviews with voters leaving the polls for precision."

[Chi]

49. We appear to be getting sidetracked...

Since the people are polled after exiting the voting booth, it brings us back to...
"Your comparing different groups of responders, which would makes the results incomparable."

"Rather, exit polls as currently designed and administered in the United States are not suitable for use as point estimators for the share of votes that go to different candidates."

Who said anything about predicting a winner?
We are talking about who you voted for last election.

[TruthIsAll]

53. Thanks, you have just proved that Kerry won..

"this is not about exit polls. This is about the poll that TIA relies upon that asks people who they voted for in 2000 (and the poll was conducted in 2004). TIA claims that the results of that poll accurately reflect reality. I say that such polls are notoriously and wildly inaccurate. That is what the study was about"

You seem to forget.
TWO POLLS!
1. Final - this one is bogus, impossible:
2:05pm (13660): Bush won 51-48
The 43/37 weights were impossible!
43% of 122.26 is 52.57mm.
Bush only got 50.456mm in 2000.
50.456 is 41.27% of 122.26.
The 41.27% assumes ALL Bush 2000 voters, even the dead ones, voted in 2004.
So the result had to be wrong!

Do you get it yet?
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THEY RESPONDED TO THE POLL.

1. Preliminary - this one is plausible.
12:22am Exit Poll (13047): Kerry won 51-48
The 41/39 weights are CLOSER to reality, although the Bush 41% is still too high. His maximum is 39.82%.
Even you must admit that 3.5% of 2000 voters (for both Bush and Kerry) died before the 2004 election.

So Kerry won the PLAUSIBLE Preliminary Exit Poll.
Bush won the IMPOSSIBLE Final Exit Poll.

qwghlmian, keep coming around.
You just make the case stronger.

[qwghlmian]

55. Just because people say in a poll

that they voted for Bush in 2000 does NOT mean that they actually did. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

[smartvoter]

62. Yeah. There was a huge conspiracy to lie in them. Arguments

cut both ways.

I have yet to see ONE person who challenges the exit poll discrepancies as being evidence of potential fraud to provide a single, plausible reason why the polls were wrong instead of the counting. The reluctant Bush voter theory has been blown to smithereens by the actual turnout relative to respondents.

[qwghlmian]

63. First of all, note that I was talking

about people lying in 2004 about who they voted for in 2000. This is a well known "post-election bandwagon effect" and I posted a link to a paper that documents it.

As for exit polls - in United States they are NOT done in a way that would allow them to be used for election verification.

http://election04.ssrc.org/research/InterimReport122204.pdf

"Rather, exit polls as currently designed and administered in the United States are not suitable for use as point estimators for the share of votes that go to different candidates."

...

"Nevertheless, some analysts inappropriately attempt to use current exit poll results to investigate whether the results in a locale (state or country) are accurate or whether fraud might be involved in an election. A certain form of exit poll could be used for this purpose, but again the designs would have to be different. To validate results in specific precincts or from particular machines, the designs would have to incorporate larger numbers of interviews with voters leaving the polls for precision."

[TruthIsAll]

74. Sure. And 1.75mm dead Bush 2000 voters may have voted for him in 2004.

I'm sure you will claim they were resurrected.
Right.

[Melissa G]

10. When they are polled in a close election

They do not know who the winner is when they are being asked, which is right after they vote before results are tabulated. How would they know which bandwagon to hop? This would be one of those posts where you are being refuted Q... will you again blithely ignore that you have been refuted as you accuse TIA of doing?

[qwghlmian]

13. Wrong, Melissa.

TIA in his posts (and the second poster in this thread) were referring to the poll that asked people in 2004 whom they voted for in 2000. As I showed in the post above, the "post-election bandwagon effect" that skews the results of such polls is well documented.

[TruthIsAll]

15. Your circular logic is pathetic. Here are 11 Yes or No questions for you..

Just answer yes or no to each.

1. Was the 41%/39% in the prelim (13047) poll due to that "bandwagon effect"?

2. Was the 43%/37% weighting in the final (13660) due to that "bandwagon effect"?

3. Is 41%/39% even mathematically possible?

4. Is 43%/37% even mathematically possible?

5. Did Mitofsky-Edison adjust the 41% to 43% to match the vote?

6. Did Mitofsky-Edison just report the 43% who voted for Bush in 2000, many of whom you say lied, without adjusting the numbers?

7. If the 43%/37% weighting is due to lying, are the corresponding voting percentages also?

8. Since the 43%/37% split is physically impossible, as it overstates the Bush 2000 vote by 2.11 million, do you have any clue as to what the true split is?

9. If your answer to (8) is yes, would you like to calculate the new Bush/Kerry vote percentage using your numbers, even knowing that it will show Kerry to be the winner?

10. Do you think these are legitimate questions?

11. If you cannot answer them, would you agree that you have no case and therefore have no idea what you are talking about?

[qwghlmian]

16. You do not dictate the terms of the debate, TIA,

and since you refuse to answer questions posed to you, why do you expect your questions answered?


It is a fact, well documented, as I have shown, that there exists a "post-election bandwagon effect" that utterly skews the polls when you ask people whom they voted for in previous elections. You completely ignore such an effect, and, when faced with it, reply with a flurry of irrelevant questions.

So - answer one question.

1. Faced with studies that show such an effect, rendering such polls completely bogus, why do you insist on using the results of such polls as if they were accurate?

[TruthIsAll]

17. I asked you 11 questions first. Answer them, then I will answer you..

Is my asking you legitimate questions "dictating the terms"?

THESE QUESTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT?

You are the one who claims to know they lied.
Ok, then answer the 11 questions to convince us that you know what you are talking about.

Apply your analytical expertise to actual 2000 vote statistics and final 2004 exit poll demographics.

Just 11 questions.
Yes or No.

Are you up to it?
I doubt it.

[qwghlmian]

18. I showed you a study that indicates

that people lie on such polls, with skews in the range of 10%.

Do you have anything at all to back up your claim that they do not?

[TruthIsAll]

19. You showed me squat. Answer the 11 questions.

.

[qwghlmian]

21. Here is the study again:

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1993_194.pdf

now you answer the question.

[Melissa G]

22. Irrelevant Squat Reposted Again true to form...

I'm Psychic... see post 20 where I predicted this behavior before it happened....based on Q's previous posts for empirical data...

[TruthIsAll]

24. Just another strawman from qwghlmian, no surprise there...

They're baaaack....

[qwghlmian]

25. Of course, anything that contradicts

your dogma is a "strawman". Pathetic.

[Melissa G]

28. Straw men have been out in force tonight!

We must have them rattled..

[Melissa G]

20. This does not seem to be an apples to apples defense of your

position. The study you cite is not talking about exit polls which use voters who are sampled just after they have voted. This study is about those who have been sampled by telephone about who they might have voted for around an election. It is talking about folks who have an opinion they are willing to give to a pollster but they may or may not be willing to get in their vehicles and get down to a poll and actually cast a vote.
This is what accounts for the overage in this sample. They are a different universe of respondent. Exit polls are questions of actual voters who have just voted.

TIA is right about your using circular logic.
My observation is that your other tendency is to fixate on an irrelevant point, cite a source and fixate some more.

[qwghlmian]

23. Wrong again.

The study talks about polling voters a certain time period after the elections to ask them who they voted for. You didn't read the study, did you? It is plainly explained in words of few syllables in there.

TIA's big argument is based on his claim that the poll that asked people in 2004 whom they voted for in 2000 is correct. The study I pointed to

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1993_194.pdf

shows plainly that such polls cannot possibly be considered accurate. Yet TIA (and you, apparently) persist.

[Melissa G]

26. It's late but I did read it.... It is not talking about the same universe

of respondent. This is you Q..doing that thing you do of 'Blithely ignoring' when you have been refuted...

[qwghlmian]

27. If you repeat it 10 times, it does not become true, Melissa.

The study I cited showed that in a poll that was taken some time *after* an election, and asked people whom they voted for in that election, people lied massively about their vote.

The poll that TIA relies upon to "prove" the fraud asked people in 2004 whom they voted for in 2000. That is the "same universe", no matter how much you don't want it to be.

On edit: it's not really for you that I posted the study - you seem to be the "true believer" and no facts will ever convince you. Hopefully it will benefit other readers, though.

[Melissa G]

29. "If you repeat it 10 times, it does not become true, Q

Excellent advice Q. I hope you heed it as you review your previous posts... Would you agree that phone respondents called at home and asked about voting preferences are a different category than voters who just walked out of a poll having voted. Can you imagine that there could easily be a 10 % shift in motivation? I sure can....

[qwghlmian]

30. You completely ignored the post to which you responded, didn't you?

That seems to be a tendency of yours. Read it again. In both polls people were asked who they voted for some time ago - not just a couple of minutes ago.

On edit: I tell you what - I provided a study that supports my opinion on such polls. Can you provide one that would suggest that such polls are accurate?

[Melissa G]

31. No I did not.. Where is your evidence of this being a tendency of mine?

It is possible I am mistaken about a point here. However,
I see no basis for your assertion of my tendency "to ignore a post' while I can cite a long history for yours for both circular logic and repeating irrelevancies.
Your study cites phone polls. The question in the thread has at least one reference to an exit poll. See Below...

"but why not RE-WEIGHT the Y2K sample from the 2004 Exit Poll question to reflect the TRUE outcome of the Y2K election,"

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[TruthIsAll]

33. Still waiting for those 11: Y or N ?

I guess we will have conclude the lack of response and we can draw our own conclusions based on # 11...

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Sancho]

36. This can be resolved!

Let's see the raw data! There's no reason to hide it except that there is a pattern that someone doesn't want revealed.

The fact that people LIE doesn't detract from the fact that polls, including the lies, accurately predict with appropriate samples and numbers. As you may expect, the lies go both ways, etc. That's part of the error. There are a variety of ways to address this....I don't think that survey 101 is the main issue. If there is an obvious analogy that can be clarified, why not do it?

Also, good surveys can spot outliers and lots of lying...because of inconsistent answers, "lie"-focused questions, etc. Changes are polls often have a "lie index". Experienced pollsters write questions to minimize false responses due to "effects". Without boring everyone, we spot and address respondent effects and rater effects all the time (halo, rosenthal, ceiling/floor, middle, john henry, etc.).

Let's see the raw data!

[Sancho]

37. As to the article....

The Amstat article isn't exactly on target. Exit polls with representative samples are different from telephone and pre-election polls. The biggest problem with pre-election polls is getting the sample who actually vote, not lying. Telephone polls also have sampling bias.

Exit polls only have one possible sample bias: those who chose to participate vs. those who don't. That the ONLY explanation possible, so that's why it has come out in this case. Regardless, most exit polls from representative samples have been VERY accurate - which is why they are used to detect fraud worldwide.

Trends in who choses to participate or very small numbers of false answers are usually easy to spot from demographics and other questions that show consistency. IF a black, democratic, women from Florida says,"I voted for all the democrats EXCEPT I voted for Bush" and the pollster doesn't ask "why" to confirm that response, then what in the world do they think they are doing?

That's why exit polls done well are accurate! TruthInALL is working with exit polls which magically seem to "change accuracy" in midstream plus show crazy differences across swing states and types of voting machinery. That points to fraud, and the raw data would be helpful to know where to look at the tabulators.

[qwghlmian]

38. You just don't get it -

you and Melissa. The Amstat article talks about polling people about their past voting. Not who they voted for 5 minutes ago, but *past* voting. TIA in his analyses relies heavily on the accuracy of a poll that asked in *2004* (note the 4 in there) about whom people voted for in *2000* (note the 0). The study shows that such a poll would most probably have a HUGE bias for the winner, and relying on its accuracy is silly.

I have no idea why you and Melissa seem to miss that point when I spelled it out time and time again.

[Melissa G]

50. We get 'it'.. we just don't 'buy ' what you are selling.....

Chi was very nice and explained it all to you up thread as to why we don't buy it.
Also it sidetracks the issue or was that the idea? The irrelevant part that is..

[anaxarchos]

51. Just more silliness....

1) "Bandwagon effect" actually increases as you get CLOSER (not farther as you state) to the time of election... thus "bandwagon".

2) There are no citations for bandwagon effect four years later in the context of the survey questions in exit polls... different animal. Google real hard and try to find a reference. Good luck.

3) "Bandwagon effect" actually helps the case for the accuracy of the exit polls in the 2004 election. There was no such effect to be found in favor of Bush in this election... nowhere... nada... not a one. Some commentators actually used this to argue that the election was fixed.

... so, congratulations Q. You have done it again. You just "proved" that "Kerry won".

[qwghlmian]

52. more silliness -

the post-election bandwagon effect does increase with time - I have read it in other studies that are not on the Net. I have no idea where you get the idea that it is not true.

It is not a different animal. If people lie in one poll, they are likely to lie in another, when asked a similar question. You think that if there is no exact equivalency between the study and the poll in question, then there is no relevance to the study. According to that logic, any study is worthless, since there are no exact equivalencies anywhere.

As for your (3) - maybe. That certainly is not "proof", just like TIA's mathematical exercises are not "proof", but it is an indication that something was weird in this election. But then, it is hard to find anyone who thinks there wasn't. It is the causes and the degree of weirdness that people differ on. There are lots of reasons this election was not-ordinary - war-time presidency, terror threats, etc - and that could be the cause of the "weirdness".

Basically - when you make big claims, you need higher proof. If you claim you are an alien from Arkcurus VII, I want to see the second heart on the x-ray. If you claim there was enormous and unprecedented fraud in these elections, more is needed than mathematical exercises and "everyone I know voted for Kerry, so how could Bush possibly win" and "there were long lines" and "I have heard that the machines defaulted to Bush".

[anaxarchos]

54. I can only imagine what you "have read"...

Here is what is published... "Bandwagon effect" is highly controversial as is "underdog effect". Most published studies focus on pre-election "bandwagon effects". The two most important studies of post-election "bandwagons" are:

Stanley Presser, "Can Context Changes Reduce Vote Overreporting?",1990

and

Robert Prisuta, "A Post-election Bandwagon Effect.", 1992

This is Prisuta on Presser (economy of citation):

"His study did find that such error was time-related, however, with the error tending to be larger the closer a survey was to an election (9)".

If you read Presser, he claims it was MUCH larger immediately after an election... thus, "bandwagon".

If I remember right, you spent weeks on this board a while ago, arguing that U.S. exit polls were "not designed" to predict outcomes but rather to answer the demographic survey questions. Now you claim that the survey is not accurate either because of a bandwagon 4 years LATER for which you can cite no evidence other than "If people lie in one poll, they are likely to lie in another".

I'm not surprised you like quotations from science fiction...

[qwghlmian]

56. Why rehash it again and again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=288785

Just go through that - it is still all relevant.

No, US exit polls are NOT designed to predict the outcome of the election or to verify it. An example of exit polling that IS designed to do so is German exit polls. Problem is, they cost roughly 10 times as much to conduct and require state conducting some census taking inside the polls.

[anaxarchos]

57. "Why rehash it again and again"?

...a very good question.

You think the exit polls are wrong and that Bush probably won.

I think you should get over it....

[abbiehoff]

58. Which was the bandwagon that people jumped onto?

As I recall, Gore actually won the 2000 election. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court. I don't think your study takes into consideration the fact that the popular and eventual electoral votes contradicted each other in 2000. Additionally, it seems likely that people would "remember" voting for an intelligent human being who might have had some chance of not screwing things up as badly as they are in fact screwed up. I suspect that many people who voted for the moran might "remember" voting for Gore.

[Sancho]

59. I get it but you don't....

If you have ever done surveys: If I stand in front of someone and they tell me that they "switched" parties etc....and many, many of them simply don't make sense - a pattern is revealed and I can spot the lies and error related to demographics or whatever - NOT a reluctance to be polled as M-E suggest. They KNOW that is not a reasonable explanation.

Regardless, there is no explanation in your article for 3 BIG issues that are much more difficult than the "lies" you suggest as the issue.

First, the error in the polls vs. actual reported votes is a systematic bias for particular counties and states that are very improbable with no explanation. Does Amstat suggests people in SOME states are liars but not in others? Not really.

Second, M-E won't reveal the data so that the patterns can be analyzed. Why? Why did they NOT see the apparent pattern of "lies" when polling? Actually, they DIDN'T lies as confounding. M-E probably knows there is evidence of hacking the election and don't want to say so.

Third, the changes from Kerry to Bush in the polls appear contrived longitudinally part way through the polling - NOT A FUNCTION OF THE WAY THE AMSTAT ARTICLE SUGGESTS - which would be similar lies from the early to late polls and across all the samples. This is not a problem of heteroscadascity and the Amstat article does not address that issue.

The article you suggest is off target - it doesn't apply to the situation.

[leanin_green]

66. What I get is. . .

I've read everything you've been a respondent to. If your playing Devil's advocate, fine. But you show up and disrupt every thread that broaches even a hint of possible evidence about vote fraud. Makes me wonder who's behind you. You expend a great deal of energy trying to disuade anyone trying to find facts and figures. You bring up some interesting points, but, a lot of it smacks of disinformation.

[qwghlmian]

69. "smacks"?

Show me which part of what I post is disinformation.

[Melissa G]

11. wrong thread self delete

[bettyellen]

60. so they would have said they voted for kerry, since he was leading

in the polls when the polls were still open.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Have you seen this?

13047 prelim exit poll 12:22am

VOTED
2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	41%	57%	2%
Gore		39%	8%	91%	1%
Bush		41%	90%	9%	1%
Other		3%	13%	65%	22%
		100%	47.38%	50.82%	1.80%
		122.26	57.93	62.13	2.20
Bush is trailing by		4.21	mm		
Increase Bush's share of new voters to 45%, reduce Kerry to
54%					
					
VOTED
2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore		39%	8%	91%	1%
Bush		41%	90%	9%	1%
Other		3%	13%	65%	22%
		100%	48.06%	50.31%	1.63%
		122.26	58.76	61.51	1.99
Bush is trailing by		2.75	mm		
					
Increase Other for Bush to 21% and Gore for Bush to 9%					
VOTED
2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore		39%	9%	91%	0%
Bush		41%	91%	9%	0%
Other		3%	21%	65%	14%
		100%	49.10%	50.31%	0.59%
		122.26	60.03	61.51	0.72
Bush is trailing by		1.48	mm		
					
Reduce Gore for Kerry to 90%					
VOTED
2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore		39%	9%	90%	1%
Bush		41%	91%	9%	0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%
		100%	49.10%	50.10%	0.80%
		122.26	60.03	61.25	0.98
Bush is trailing by		1.22	mm		
					
Increase Gore voters for Bush from 9 to 10%					
VOTED
2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore		39%	10%	90%	0%
Bush		41%	91%	9%	0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%
		100%	49.49%	50.10%	0.41%
		122.26	60.51	61.25	0.50

Bush is trailing by	0.75mm (CLOSE TO THE 2000 RESULT)		

A Drastic move is necessary. 					

MUST RE-WEIGHT the Gore/Bush mix					
Increase the Bush WEIGHT to 42%, even though 41.26% is the
maximum assuming no Bush 2000 voters died and ALL still alive
returned to vote.	The hell with the Reluctant Bush Responder
theory.					
VOTED
2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	45%	54%	1%
Gore		38%	10%	90%	0%
Bush		42%	91%	9%	0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%
		100%	50.30%	49.29%	0.41%
		122.26	61.50	60.26	0.50

Bush takes the lead by 1.23			
But 1.23 million is not enough					
Hell, 42% is already an impossibility, let's make it 43%					
Increase the Bush/Gore WEIGHT SPREAD to 43-37%.					
We need to match the 3 millon Bush win margin.					
So there must be a 104.14% turnout for Bush 2000 voters.			

2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No		17%	45%	54%	0%
Gore		37%	10%	90%	0%
Bush		43%	91%	9%	0%
Other		3%	21%	71%	8%
TOTAL		100%	51.11%	48.48%	0.24%
Votes		122.05	62.49	59.27	0.29

BUSH FINAL MARGIN: 3.22 MILLION

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[TruthIsAll]

6. Maybe this will help

The Final Exit Poll is matched to the final recorded vote.
and it says that Bush 2000 voters comprised a full 43% of the
vote, while Gore voters were just 37%.
						
But this is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE, since Bush received
50.456 million votes in 2000, which is 41.26% of the total
122.26 million who voted in 2004.						

If we assume that 3.5% of 2000 voters have died (based on the
annual 0.87% U.S. death rate), then the MAXIMUM LIVE 2000
voter turnout must be 39.82% Bush and 40.25% Gore.

IT CAN BE NO HIGHER. PERIOD.
IN FACT, IT IS LESS THAN THAT, BECAUSE SOME BUSH (AND GORE)
VOTERS STAYED HOME. 						

Let's consider FIVE scenarios based on realistic
numbers:						
Scenario 1						
FINAL 13660 POLL WEIGHTS- 
WEIGHTS ADJUSTED FOR the .87% annual DEATH RATE						

100% turnout of 2000 voters:	101.097 million	
						
Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
21.163	None		17.31%	45%	54%	1%
49.210	Gore		40.25%	8%	92%	0%
48.684	Bush		39.82%	91%	9%	0%
3.203	Other		2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL		100.00%	47.59%	51.82%	0.59%
122.26	Votes			58.18	63.36	0.72
Kerry	Margin		5.18 MILLION			
						
						
Scenario 2						
PRELIMINARY 13047 POLL- 
WEIGHTS ADJUSTED FOR THE 0.87% annual DEATH RATE						
100% turnout of 2000 voters: 101.097 million	
						
Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
21.163	None		17.31%	41.0%	57.0%	2%
49.210	Gore		40.25%	8%	91%	1%
48.684	Bush		39.82%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	13%	71%	16%

101.10	TOTAL		100.0%	46.50%	51.94%	1.57%
122.26	Votes		122.26	56.85	63.50	1.91
Kerry	Margin		6.65 MILLION		
						
Scenario 3 (Most Likely)						
99% turnout of 2000 voters: 99.874	million	
						
Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
22.386	None		18.31%	41.5%	57.5%	1%
48.598	Gore		39.75%	8%	91%	1%
48.073	Bush		39.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL		100.0%	46.51%	52.10%	1.39%
122.26	Votes		122.26	56.86	63.70	1.70
Kerry	Margin		6.84 MILLION		
						
Scenario 4						
98% turnout of 2000 voters: 98.652	million	
						
Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
23.608	None		19.31%	41.5%	57.5%	1%
47.987	Gore		39.25%	8%	91%	1%
47.461	Bush		38.82%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL		100.00%	46.43%	52.17%	1.39%
122.26	Votes		122.26	56.77	63.79	1.70
Kerry	Margin		7.02 MILLION			
						
Scenario 5						
97% turnout of 2000 voters: 97.429	million	
						
Voted	2000		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
24.831	None		20.31%	41.0%	57.0%	2%
47.376	Gore		38.75%	8%	91%	1%
46.850	Bush		38.32%	90%	9%	1%
3.203	Other		2.62%	13%	71%	16%

	TOTAL		100.00%	46.26%	52.15%	1.60%
122.26	Votes		122.26	56.55	63.76	1.95
Kerry	Margin		7.20			

[TruthIsAll]

7. 100% Bush voter turnout; Kerry wins all ( 54-59% new voters)

Best case scenario:
Preliminary exit poll (11027)
Kerry wins new voters by 59-39%
Bush and Gore 2000 voters ALL turnout:

Kerry Margin of victory: 
7.29 million votes

Worst case scenario:
Final exit poll (13066)
Kerry wins new voters by 54-45%
100% Bush Voter turnout
88.6% Gore 2000 Voter turnout:

Kerry Margin of victory: 
870,000 votes


		KERRY NATIONAL VOTE MARGIN OF VICTORY					
For 120 New Voter and Gore 2000 Voter Turnout Scenarios					
		(Assume 100% Turnout of Bush 2000 voters)					
							
Assumed		Prel.	    Prel.	               Final
Turnout	     	7:38pm	    12:22am			2:05pm
Bush	 	11027	    13047			13660
100%

        KERRY WINNING MARGIN IN MILLIONS OF VOTES

	Turnout   KERRY SHARE OF NEW VOTERS					
Case	GORE	59%	58%	57%	56%	55%	54%

1	100%	7.29	6.86	6.44	6.02	5.59	5.17
2	99.4%	7.09	6.66	6.23	5.80	5.37	4.94
3	98.8%	6.89	6.46	6.02	5.59	5.15	4.72
4	98.2%	6.70	6.26	5.82	5.37	4.93	4.49
5	97.6%	6.50	6.06	5.61	5.16	4.71	4.26
							
6	97.0%	6.31	5.85	5.40	4.95	4.49	4.04
7	96.4%	6.11	5.65	5.19	4.73	4.27	3.81
8	95.8%	5.92	5.45	4.98	4.52	4.05	3.59
9	95.2%	5.72	5.25	4.78	4.30	3.83	3.36
10	94.6%	5.53	5.05	4.57	4.09	3.61	3.13

11	94.0%	5.33	4.85	4.36	3.88	3.39	2.91
12	93.4%	5.13	4.64	4.15	3.66	3.17	2.68
13	92.8%	4.94	4.44	3.95	3.45	2.95	2.46
14	92.2%	4.74	4.24	3.74	3.23	2.73	2.23
15	91.6%	4.55	4.04	3.53	3.02	2.51	2.00

16	91.0%	4.35	3.84	3.32	2.81	2.29	1.78
17	90.4%	4.16	3.63	3.11	2.59	2.07	1.55
18	89.8%	3.96	3.43	2.91	2.38	1.85	1.32
19	89.2%	3.76	3.23	2.70	2.16	1.63	1.10
20	88.6%	3.57	3.03	2.49	1.95	1.41	0.87

[TruthIsAll]

8. And finally, this. All scenario combinations confirm the obvious...

						KERRY NATIONAL VOTE SCENARIOS					
						New Voter Share and Gore 2000 Voter Turnout					
						(Assume 100% Turnout of Bush 2000 voters)					

	Assumed		Prelim.		Prelim.				Final		
	Turnout	Turnout	7:38pm		12:22am				2:05pm	2000 Voter Mix	
	Bush	Gore	11027		13047				13660	Bush Gore 	

		KERRY SHARE OF NEW VOTERS								
Case			59%		58%	57%	56%	55%	54%		
1	100.0%	100.0%	52.28%		52.11%	51.94%	51.77%	51.59%	51.42%	39.82%	40.25%
2	99.4%	99.4%	52.33%		52.15%	51.97%	51.80%	51.62%	51.44%	39.57%	40.00%
3	98.8%	98.8%	52.37%		52.19%	52.01%	51.83%	51.64%	51.46%	39.32%	39.75%
4	98.2%	98.2%	52.42%		52.23%	52.04%	51.86%	51.67%	51.48%	39.07%	39.50%
5	97.6%	97.6%	52.46%		52.27%	52.08%	51.89%	51.69%	51.50%	38.82%	39.25%

6	97.0%	97.0%	52.51%		52.31%	52.11%	51.92%	51.72%	51.52%	38.57%	39.00%
7	96.4%	96.4%	52.55%		52.35%	52.15%	51.95%	51.74%	51.54%	38.32%	38.75%
8	95.7%	95.8%	52.60%		52.39%	52.18%	51.98%	51.77%	51.56%	38.07%	38.50%
9	95.1%	95.2%	52.64%		52.43%	52.22%	52.01%	51.79%	51.58%	37.82%	38.25%
10	94.5%	94.6%	52.69%		52.47%	52.25%	52.04%	51.82%	51.60%	37.57%	38.00%

11	93.9%	94.0%	52.73%		52.51%	52.29%	52.07%	51.84%	51.62%	37.32%	37.75%
12	93.3%	93.4%	52.78%		52.55%	52.32%	52.10%	51.87%	51.64%	37.07%	37.50%
13	92.7%	92.8%	52.82%		52.59%	52.36%	52.13%	51.89%	51.66%	36.82%	37.25%
14	92.1%	92.2%	52.87%		52.63%	52.39%	52.16%	51.92%	51.68%	36.57%	37.00%
15	91.5%	91.6%	52.91%		52.67%	52.43%	52.19%	51.94%	51.70%	36.32%	36.75%

16	90.9%	91.0%	52.96%		52.71%	52.46%	52.22%	51.97%	51.72%	36.07%	36.50%
17	90.3%	90.4%	53.00%		52.75%	52.50%	52.25%	51.99%	51.74%	35.82%	36.25%
18	89.7%	89.8%	53.05%		52.79%	52.53%	52.28%	52.02%	51.76%	35.57%	36.00%
19	89.1%	89.2%	53.09%		52.83%	52.57%	52.31%	52.04%	51.78%	35.32%	35.75%
20	88.5%	88.6%	53.14%		52.87%	52.60%	52.34%	52.07%	51.80%	35.07%	35.50%

[autorank]

14. Now that's what I call a highly persuasive "Reply"

TIA :yourock:

[farmbo]

34. BB...I believe a "DUHHH" is in order.

eom

[dogindia]

64. kick.

[Bill Bored]

65. TIA and I have agreed on this (I think):

1. 2000 was almost a tie with Gore having a small edge (of course this doesn't include those who never made it to the polls for various reasons or didn't have their ballots counted);

2. In general, party loyalty is ~90%, so in 2004, it was still close to a tie until the new voters are taken into account;

3. New voters strongly favored Kerry.

There. Simple. Based on these three simple premises, Kerry won the popular vote.

When I asked TIA why he makes it all so complicated, he said this was to satisfy the naysayers. So I have a suggestion:

I think the naysayers should LEAVE TIA ALONE!!! Accept the above hypothesis for now, and get on with finding out HOW the election was actually stolen! We are wasting much too much time and brainpower on these bloody exit polls! Rove is laughing his ass off about this I'm sure.

Just my 2 cents.

[qwghlmian]

68. That's just way too simplistic -

first of all, because of the overreporting of past voting, you have no idea how many people said they voted in 2000 even though they didn't (and because of that lie removed themselves from the "new voters" category in the polls). So the "new voters strongly favored Kerry" is not as certain as you'd like to think.

Second, even if you accept the "90% party loyalty" thing (and I would take that with a huge grain of salt) that still gives you a 10% swing range that could go either way. Since the margin of victory was small, 10% is enormous compared to it.

And third - basically, 9/11 came and changed everything. You are completely ignoring the (IMO) huge factor of "you don't change commanders in the middle of the war" crowd. You are completely ignoring the successful painting of Kerry as weak on terrorism that could have moved big portions of electorate to the R side.

Basically, you see too much of DU in the outside world. DU is not typical. DU posters are not typical voters. Just because DU is solidly anti-Bush does not mean that the whole (or even 50%) of the voters in US are. Just because DU is not swayed by the terrorism fears or the "war president" factor does not mean that the rest of the voters out there aren't.

[Melissa G]

70. Your opinion has been noted as has been your lack of facts to back it up

in this particular thread. You are not adding new information to the discussion. This is disruptive, not helpful. I am sure you prefer to be helping in the search for truth... Correct?

[qwghlmian]

71. The "lack of facts" - you mean

the "90% party loyalty" thing that was pulled out of thin air? As for the part of people lying in polls, I backed it up with references.

The problem I see in your "search for truth" is that you decide in advance what "the truth" is, then you go searching for something, anything, to "prove" it. Any facts that contradict the pre-determined "truth" are ignored or dismissed. Some search.

[Melissa G]

72. go check the other thread ..I might be agreeing with you there.

In this one I think you are either confused or misleading. In that one I am giving you the benefit of the doubt

[qwghlmian]

73. Let me ask you a question

(I would ask TIA, but he would not answer, since he never answers anything)

What would it take to convince you that in the 2004 election, though some fraud occured (as it occurs in every election since the very first one), it was not on the level of 3 million votes (or 100,000 votes in Ohio) etc. It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that in November, the day of the elections, you and TIA and others decided that it is impossible that Bush was elected, thus it must have been massive, unprecented in scale, fraud that happened, and you are searching ever since for something to prove that pre-determined conclusion that you reached.

If one year from now there still is no "smoking gun", no recount anywhere that uncovers any significant enough discrepancies, no one coming forward and confessing to rigging up machines, no documents surfacing that prove the massive fraud, none of the thousands of people that it must have taken to do it if it happened "cracking" or leaking anything to the media - none of this, just TIA obsessively playing with the "miracle" Excel function that he found and rumors and innuendos and conjectures and "none of my neighbors or friends voted for Bush, so how could he have possibly won" - will that convince you? How about two years? Five?

If someone goes and recounts all of Ohio, and finds that their results match the official results - will that convince you? Or will you accuse the recounter of ulterior motives (as people here on this board accused adolfo from recountflorida.com when I first brought to the board's attention that he recounted two counties in FL and found no discrepancies) or claim that he was sent by Rove? How about people turning on Nader and claiming that he was sent by Karl Rove to cover up fraud when he recounted those precincts in NH and found no discrepancies?

The problem with "true believers" is that no amount of evidence (or lack of evidence) can dissuade them. Any new information gets instantly absorbed into the theory. Lack of evidence - that's because "they" are too good at hiding it. No whistleblowers - that's because they are all too afraid to come out. Fisher's web site disappearing - must be because evil conspirators have done it. Recounts showing no problems - that's because they are "bad" recounts. Democrats involved in those recounts and supervising them in Ohio - they must be "bad" Democrats. New Mexico's Democratic governor refusing to go along with the paranoia - oust him, he's a DINO. Hell, TIA would not even admit that 40*10=400 and claims that it is 4000 because agreeing that it is 400 would demolish one of his pet theories.

So excuse me if I don't take your claims of my "disruption" seriously. Any facts whatsoever that do not agree with your pre-determined "truth" are "disruptive".

[Melissa G]

76. Hi Q, I don't think you really want an answer and I wonder why

you spend so much time here asking.. (Don't you have a life?)

However, as I person who has lived on this site for several hours a day since about the seventh of November, I'll answer. No single smoking gun..no I cannot yet point to one thing that shows unequivocally that some republicans stole the election in an orchestrated fashion. I think this is because it was stolen in so many thousands of ways. 80 % of the vote being counted by two republican brothers being the first unacceptable theft in a long line of thefts..

I have in my own little way been observing all these thousands of ways. They show, smoking gun unequivocally, that we do not have a safe democracy. I spent almost my entire summer at the capitol watching Delay and his agents steal my representation through re redistricting.
There was so much unethicalness there I can't even describe it without volumes.

I, and so many others, spent many hours working to insure that W did not win. He did not.
I watched with all of America as the country had a hiccup moment. I saw this incredulous thing happen where we registered more voters, and Bush voters defected right and left, and new voters voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Kerry Won.. but his votes were not counted.

There are documented instances all over this site to show that he lost Ohio, Florida and New Mexico, maybe lots more. It's there for anyone with eyes to look.

[qwghlmian]

77. So, in other words, you are saying

that even if in ten years nothing concrete shows up that proves your gut feeling that the election was stolen by massive, unprecedented fraud, you will still believe that it was.

That's exactly what I was talking about. A mark of a "true believer".

On edit: since you are convinced that the election was stolen "in so many thousands of ways", do you ever wonder how it is that out of literally THOUSANDS of people that it would take to steal the election in "many thousands of ways", not ONE has surfaced yet to blow the whistle? Does this ever make you doubt your position? Nah, silly me, sorry for even asking.

[Melissa G]

80. Q, do you just get on this site to spew your conviction that W won

or do you actually follow the threads in this forum that would show you all the irregularities?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=3390

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=353427

[qwghlmian]

82. "Irregularities" do not equal massive fraud.

Of COURSE there are irregularities. There has been fraud in every election, always has been, always will be. It just has not been on a scale (except possibly in the Kennedy/Nixon election, but even then doubtful) that would affect the national results. You claim that this time it was on such a scale. You would have to show more than "irregularities".

And as I thought, you completely ignored my question. Here it is again:

Since you are convinced that the election was stolen "in so many thousands of ways", do you ever wonder how it is that out of literally THOUSANDS of people that it would take to steal the election in "many thousands of ways", not ONE has surfaced yet to blow the whistle? Does this ever make you doubt your position?

[Melissa G]

83. I 've talked to a couple who I imagine helped steal it...

I have a wide circle of political acquaintances. I grew up in politics from about the age of 6 months..They do not believe there is anything bad about what they know. One believes that "there are more important things than counting the vote". He believes that it is better that their guys are running things than ours. A higher good you might say. There is no whistle to blow for most of these particular people. It is just business as usual. Since I know these things it only strengthens my position.

Edit for clarity

[qwghlmian]

85. You "know some"?

You are aware, of course, that committing fraud in national elections is a federal crime? If you know of someone who has committed fraud it is your duty to report them at once to the authorities. Have you done so?

[Melissa G]

87. I have no proof. Just round about political discussions in circles that

I run in. People who work in this field are not stupid. It is the way the game is played. I do wonder from your responses if you are not a player...

[qwghlmian]

89. Hehehe, no, I try to keep as far away from politicians

as possible. Afraid to catch cooties, you know.

So - you have no proof. Just roundabout political discussions. Yet you claim that those people have committed fraud. Jumping the gun a bit, aren't you?

[Bill Bored]

91. The real issue is that THEY can't prove it wasn't stolen.

And that is a serious problem with the system.

[qwghlmian]

93. Of course it is a problem, and needs fixing, but there

is a huge leap from that to certainty that massive fraud happened.

That TV that is sitting in your living room. Do you have a receipt for it? No? Then prove to me it was not stolen.

[Melissa G]

95. There is some sorry logic.. The TV in my living room has a paper trail

somewhere and it is a lot less important than my vote which goes into a black box counted by partisan companies with no receipt. Not remotely apples to apples...

[qwghlmian]

99. Sure it is - it shows how hard it is to prove a negative.

even better - prove that the $20 in your pocket is not stolen. Can't? Then I guess it was stolen, wasn't it?

And I do think that paperless voting machines, as a concept, are ridiculous and should be outlawed. But the ones with paper trails (which is the huge majority of them) are fine. The risk that any fraudster would take in being uncovered by the paper trail would be too big for such fraud to be perpetrated on any significant scale.

[Melissa G]

101. Ah, we have moved into classic Q crap again..

The risk is minimized by the amount of the FraWd. Like in Florida where they passed a law where if you steal the election in a big enough fashion without proof in too short a time frame you lose the ability to question the results. That just happened in this last election. That is a well documented way this election was legally stolen.

[qwghlmian]

104. But in Florida you can go, pay a nominal amount of money,

and recount any precinct you want. adolfo will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it cost him $50 to recount two precincts. You can uncover the vast conspiracy all by your lonesome, with hard proof. No law preventing you from doing that. Do you think if tomorrow you get together a few friends, recount a couple of counties in Florida and find a few hundred thousand extra votes for Kerry, that will not make a splash? Seriously?

The ease with which you can go and do those recounts is exactly the reason why I think that if you actually do them you will not find significant discrepancies. I am sure that sounds like "crap" to you, since you "know" the truth (with no proof, of course), but if I was such a conspirator, I would not ever do the crime that could be uncovered by a couple of DUers with a few hundred dollars and would possibly land me in prison for decades. Would you?

[Melissa G]

111. I think you are mistaken here.. Going to bed.... will look for

links tomorrow. I am remembering Andy and Bev had to shut down an investigation because they could not prove a large enough amount of votes were at risk in a too short time period. If anyone remembers this thread pls post..nighty night

[qwghlmian]

115. You are wrong.

Go to www.recountflorida.com for the account of how a couple of precincts were recounted, the procedure and the results.

You should know by now, I don't post stuff I can't back up.

[Melissa G]

96. A big Problem when even with this p*** poor MSM coverage

over 30% of the electorate has no confidence their vote was counted correctly.

[Melissa G]

94. Edited previous post for clarity to admit my imaginations

As I said I talk to a lot of political types. I am not afraid of cooties and I am interested in world views other than my own.

[Melissa G]

103. Not all theft is FraWd but it all needs to go away .n/t

[Bill Bored]

79. What would it take to convince me?

that in the 2004 election, though some fraud occured...it was not on the level of 3 million votes (or 100,000 votes in Ohio) etc.

First, it would take some votin' machines that weren't designed to FACILITATE THE CRIME, intentionally or otherwise.

Second, I'd also like to see elections run by some truly bi-partisan committees or BOEs instead of Glenda Hood and Ken Blackwell.

Third, I'd like to see some actual proof that the votes were counted as cast, which is impossible now in any jurisdiction with paperless machines, including mechanical lever machines (although at least the levers are hard to hack in such a way as to FAVOR one candidate over another without detection).

Fourth, I'd like to see that the President had or has some descent approval ratings, without allowing the country to be attacked to rally the troops and all that.

Fifth, I'd like to see ballot order rotations in Ohio that weren't set up for Kerry's votes to be switched to Bush in the event the ballots were read by the wrong machines.

Sixth, I'd like to see more than just one header card in the stack that tells the person who loads the ballots which machine they're supposed to go into to be counted correctly.

Seventh, I'd like to see a recount of Ohio performed according to the LAWS of the state, instead of what was witnessed there.

Eighth, I'd like to see exit polls designed to prove that the election wasn't rigged, so they wouldn't have to be "adjusted" so damn much, even to the point where the have to say that one of the parties didn't show up!

Ninth, I'd like to see all those with the right to vote, be allowed to vote, although this would not be reflected in the exit polls, except maybe for that part where they claim the Dems just forgot show up!

I can't think of too many more off the top of my head right now, but these would help me have a little more confidence that they got it right. At this point I have little to none.

And what would convince you qwghlmian? That you saw it on the Tee Vee???

[qwghlmian]

81. Ok - let's take your answer -

the majority of the points you make are under control of Democrats. In Ohio, as in other states, every BOE is 50:50 D:R, and they control which machines are used, how they are set up, the design of the ballots and how the recounts are done. So, basically, your point is that Democratic Party election officials are so ridiculously ignorant, lazy, incompetent and negligent that Republican election officials can outsmart, outwit and outplay them at every turn, pre- and post-elections?

Sorry, that is very hard to buy. And that is a prerequisite for the massive undetected fraud that you seem to believe in.

[Bill Bored]

86. And recount laws were broken. That's a fact.

As far as being ridiculously ignorant, lazy, incompetent and negligent, I think all it would take is a bit of denial or cognitive dissonance on their part, or a bit of intimidation. I can't speak for them, but the facts are the facts and that recount was NOT conducted according to Ohio law. In fact, 97% of the votes were never recounted at all. You're beginning to sound like Blackwell or James Baker III though. You got something against vote countin'?

[qwghlmian]

92. Bill -

it would take a bit of denial or cognitive dissonance, or intimidation, on the part of ALL those Democratic election officials? None of them are dedicated, knowledgeable, hard working, thorough and loyal? Wouldn't you say that's a stretch?

97% of the votes were recounted by optical scanners. That is very far from saying they were not recounted at all, Bill. And no, I have nothing against vote counting. In fact, if you have read this forum, you would find that I urged anyone who suspected massive fraud in Ohio to go and conduct a personal recount, today, of the precincts that they would most suspect in order to find the discrepancies that they were sure existed. I even found out what the procedure is for such an undertaking and showed the legal opinions of Ohio AG that would show that such recounts were possible to do. No takers.

[Bill Bored]

106. Well we agree on recounting Ohio.

But you are wrong -- most of them were punch cards -- not Op Scans.

As to why it's not happening, I'm sure that after raising >$100,000 to do this once already and having it corrupted by the powers that be, who wanted to charge about 10 times that mount, but negelcted to put it into the law, there are those who have lost interest in this, esp. since the inauguration.

I think 3 counties -- Warren, Butler and Clermont -- SHOULD be done though and I'm not sure why no one's doing it. Is the evidence still there? How long do they have to keep it?

[qwghlmian]

113. I posted the legal stuff on this recently to adolfo -

you can do it today, the costs are minimal, all the election materials are preserved by Ohio law, and they will keep it at least for a couple of years.

As for why no one's doing it - you tell me. I wouldn't do it because I think it is a waste of time, but why are all the people who are convinced that the fraud is out there to be found not doing it?

[Bill Bored]

75. And you are probably ignoring the ease with which the machines

could have been rigged. (If you can read this web page, you can steal an election!)

I am clearly of two minds when it comes to these polls.

When you look at some of the specifics, they don't seem to add up. There are lots of inconsistencies between the states. We've been debating this for months here. But I think my simplistic analysis above is something that I feel comfortable with at the moment, which is all any of us can do.

When I start hearing about zombies for Bush, it doesn't do much for me. People die and if you wanted to, you could probably come up with an argument, as the Republicans have recently to push their Social Security debacle, that says Blacks don't live as long as Whites, so more Gore voters from 2000 died than Bush voters did. But it proves nothing.

Sure there were Dems for Bush. But did you catch all those Repubs for Kerry? If not, go back and look at the newspaper endorsements and the others leading up to the election from prominent and ordinary Republicans. When was the last time you saw anything like that?

That wimp Pat Buchanan was the only conservative in his own magazine that endorsed Shrub. You want to talk about simplistic? Read what that idiot wrote. Most of the other right wingers were well-reasoned and insightful. Pat just said Bush was right on 2 out of 3 issues and Kerry was wrong on 2 out of 3, so he endorsed Bush. What a jerk!

I think the 90% is still a good estimate for party loyalty. Even the final exit polls said that 93% Reps/89% Dems were loyal to the top of their ticket. But they still had to adjust the actual party TURNOUTS to get Bush into the game. They said the Dems didn't show up at the polls. You believe that?

Even if your theory is true and they voted for Bush, they still had to SHOW UP, and the exit polls said they didn't, especially in West. That's how much they had to corrupt the polls just to give Bush a tie in the popular vote, much less a clear cut victory. The Dems just sat on their hands in 2004 -- this is what they would have us believe. This is why I think the final polls were bogus. Here:

West: 11/2/2004 7:33:46 PM
Democrat 37
Republic 34

"Oh, never mind, the California Dems really didn't show up after all. We were just kidding! They stayed home. Here are the CORRECTED numbers:"

West: 11/3/2004 1:24:53 PM
Democrat 34
Republic 36

Now stop it Warren Mitofsky, just stop it.

[qwghlmian]

78. Bill, I have been programming computers starting with

IBM 360, thru C64 and Apples, to the first PCs and until now. Please do explain to me how it would be "easy" to rig thousands of machines of different types and makes, most of them with paper trails, without any risk of being found out. All the half-baked scenarios of such massive rigging that I have seen so far have been written by amateurs and were laughable. Be as technical as you want to be.

[Bill Bored]

84. Not here, not now.

I will say that paper "trails" are useless unless they're actually counted though, and most of the machines in question are just PCs.

You have not answered the question of what it would take to convince you that there was no outcome-affecting fraud.

[qwghlmian]

88. Paper trails are very useful

because they make rigging up machine an extremely risky endeavour. You don't know beforehand if the paper trail will get recounted, and if it does, your gig is up.

What it would take to convince me that there was no outcome-affecting fraud? No need to convince me, that is my opinion already.

If you actually meant to ask the opposite in your question, it would take

a participant in the fraud that would come forth to explain, in detail, how the fraud was done and would be proven to have been in position to do it, or

a recount that would show a massive discrepancy, or

a technical explanation or, even better, a demonstration of how it would be possible to rig thousands of machines of different makes and models at the same time, or

a disassembled voting program executable from the voting day computer that would be shown to have the "cheating" code. Source code would be even better, but then it would have to be proven to have been compiled into the actual election-day executables.

I am sure I could think of a few others. In every case it would have to be shown that the fraud had affeced thousands of votes, not dozens. Andy finding a possible discrepancy of 9 votes in the Ohio poll books just doesn't cut it.

But none of these happened or really have any chance of happening, wouldn't you say?

[Bill Bored]

90. Why do you have that opinion?

What has convinced you that things were, for the most part, on the up and up?

[qwghlmian]

97. I just explained it in several posts -

but if you want to go into it again...

It is impossible to keep secrets. If more than half a dozen people are in on something, it will come out. Even more so if there are a hundred. How much more impossible if there are thousands. Unless you buy into the naive technically-ignorant science-fiction vision of an "uber-hacker" sitting in front of his computer and magically reaching into every voting machine out there and tweaking numbers, without any risk of discovery, you have to admit that it would take thousands of people to conduct fraud on the scale that was needed to "steal" national elections, with a significant minority of those conspirators Democrats.

There is no way in the world that you can make all these people to keep quiet. There is no way in the world for everything in the fraud to go so smoothly that there are no trails left that would unravel the whole thing. For example, if you were such a conspirator, would you count on being able to sabotage every recount, in every state, that would otherwise uncover your crime? How about those personal recounts that I mentioned? It is possible to do them right now, and just because no one is doing them does not mean that the "conspirators" could possibly count on being able to prevent them.

You are assigning magical competence to Republicans. I don't buy into that. I don't think Karl Rove is a superman, like so many on DU do. Almost every hacker I ever met was more of a leftie/anarchist type. Technically no one has yet suggested how such fraud is possible. So - this is on the level of "the Moon landing was done in Hollywood studios" theory. Same thousands of quiet conspirators. Same technical difficulties. Same fanatical adherents.

[TruthIsAll]

98. Will the conspiracy you are engaged in to sabotage my threads

ever come out?

Or is it all just a coincidence theory?

[qwghlmian]

100. ROTFL. The conceit! n/t

[autorank]

105. qwghlmian, A few questions.

How about commenting on these to give us an idea of where you stand on the issue of election fraud:

Here is my indisputable series of proofs regarding election fraud. If there were no tricks with the NEPs, the data would be revealed for total examination.

Comment:

If there were no fraudulent acts in Ohio, the entire process would have been made transparent from pre election planning, election procedures, and post election analysis.

Comment:

If there were no problems with voting machines, tabulators, etc., the software and procedures, the personnel involved, and the entire process would be open to all for examination.

Comment:

And, if a real recount could clear our suspicions, then the odious Gov. Richardson of the small state of New Mexico would not have squashed the recount there by trying to extort a $1.5 million fee from those requesting the recount.

Comment:

This is all you need to know that the election was stolen through fraud.
----------------------------------------------------------------

[qwghlmian]

109. Really?

Was the Democratic Governor Richardson in on the fraud as well? Please explain his motivation as you see it - why does he want Democratic Party to lose the election? Do you think all his political carreer was dedicated to helping Republicans win or did he "turn" only recently? How about all those Democratic Secretaries of State that are out there. Also in on it?

As for your questions - how about telling us if the entire process in Ohio was transparent in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 etc? And if not, is that proof there was massive fraud then?

Was the entire process with election machines open for examination in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 etc? And if not, is that proof there was massive fraud then?

[autorank]

122. Thank you for answering my big question by not answering any question.

I had four questions for comment, even made a little form for you. Did you answer a single one of them? NO. Telling, isn't it!

With regard to you comments:

--Richardson. He's hardly serious about governance or democracy when he places a $1.3 million price tag on a recount. That shows me everything I need to know, or any one needs to know, about his intentions. He is a 'don't rock the boat' guy or worse. He is unacceptable for any place on any Democratic ticket or in any administration because of this deterrence to a recount. What would a recount hurt? Nothing. Why price it out of the reach of people with legitimate questions? Because you're NOT in favor of good government, i.e., recounts, and you are not in favor of a robust democracy.

--Ohio wasn't transparent during these years nor were the election machines open for examination in national elections during the years you mentioned, to my knowledge. The potential for theft does not equal the act of theft. I have a lot of things in my house that could be stolen. My security system is good but suboptimal in terms of absolute protection. There just hasn't been a motivated thief in the 'hood to date. Were there one, I suppose I could easily be robbed. Same for the election, the * machine is dishonest to the core. 2000 Florida showed that -- systematic elimination of 50,000 black voters (agreed to by the State of Florida in their Consent Decree with the NAACP, little covered story). This was theft. They were so full of themselves, they looked around the national 'hood and realized that things were ripe for the stealing...and they acted with force and determination.

You exposed your arguments on this thread and elsewhere for what they are by both your failure to address my questions and you comments in this message; they are disingenuous and fatuous.

I no longer take your arguments seriously nor should anyone else concerned about an honest, open democracy.

Bye bye.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

144. That's total bull shit. You're not serious. Don't know what's going

on with your posts but it's not discovering anything that will help the election process.

[Bill Bored]

102. I'm all for personal recounts, but I don't think you know very much

about election management systems...yet.

As far as recounts, how many have there actually been?

All I've seen are a couple of precincts in FL a few counties in NH and 3% of Ohio conducted non-randomly and hence illegally.

Where are the recounts?

[qwghlmian]

107. Good question - why do you think all those people

who are 100% convinced that there was massive fraud are not down at their BOEs recounting those ballots? It is possible to do in OH and FL, and I am sure in a lot of other states. Yet no one is doing that.

But the possibility to do these recounts does exist, even if there are no takers. So, as I asked Melissa G, if you were an election fraud conspirator, would you commit a crime that could be easily uncovered by a couple of DUers with a few hundred dollars and some ambition, and would land you in prison for decades?

[Bill Bored]

112. Cost a lot more than that.

You are being too selective in your answers.

I told you I agreed about the recounts, but what I was asking you is WHERE are the recounts to prove that there was no fraud. The answer is they haven't been done. And the attempt in Ohio, which cost >$100,000, which the state says they lost money on, was a failed attempt. So how can there be that much incentive to try again? Lawsuits have been filed over that recount, haven't they? Why do you think it's so easy to do another? Where do you get the $100 price tag? Don't you have to pay the BOE to handle the ballots? If not, then again, I agree with you. Recount the big 3 counties where Bush got a lot of his margin in OH.

[qwghlmian]

117. If you go to www.recountflorida.com - you will find

that it cost about $50 to recount 1800 votes. Warren County in Ohio is less than 100K ballots. Extrapolate it, add a couple of hundred bucks for expenses, you get $3,000 to recount it. You would probably also need ten people or so. That's $300/person and a little elbow grease. You don't call that "easy"? Come on, this is to prove, with hard proof, the electoral crime of a century. For stakes like that, it's cheap. I am sure if you passed the hat around here, explaining what it's for, you'd have your 3K in a day or two.

I think I also have seen adolfo say that in Ohio the BOEs do not charge for the time of the recounts. If that's true, it would not even cost the $3K.

Ah here is my post about the Ohio "personal" recounts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=349433&mesg_id=352765

and here is adolfo's that says that in Ohio you don't have to pay even the small amount that you have to pay in Florida:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=329749&mesg_id=345978

[Bill Bored]

114. And besides, you can just hack the paperless machines. nt

[qwghlmian]

118. Ok - granted,

is it your suggestion that Ohio's 100,000+ "stolen" votes were done on paperless machines?

[Melissa G]

119. Remember the Tabulators , The paper trails on the machines have to

be recounted to count... Steal big and the margin of error that might automatically trigger a recount is exceeded. The tabulators must also be watched. There are so many ways to currently steal the vote. We need a transparent, verifiable election process.

[kster]

120. Thats the way I

see it remember http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=347360

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Bill Bored]

124. Q, I think you have a valid point here and I would also think that

the citizens of the states in question should be leading the charge.

Recount Florida did only a few precincts from what I could tell. I'm not sure how they were selected, what discrepancies were found, whether they're going to do more, or what. If I recall, they were not given access to all the absentee ballots and perhaps this included Early Voting ballots too. I'd like to see more hand count data, esp. some of the Op Scan counties highlighted by Dopp and Liddle. And Early and Absentee ballots MUST be included, since they are not programmed or counted the same as polling place ballots on election Day.

Now let me ask you, do you support this, or are you raising it as some kind of straw man?

And, BTW, for whom did YOU vote in 2004 (assuming you will not allow yourself to be unduly influenced by the "bandwagon effect" and will answer honestly)! ;)

If you're saying that the conspiracy theorists would rather sit and speculate instead of trying to get to the truth, I'm not sure I agree with you, but this is a concern, esp. where exit poll analysis is concerned. This is why I posted on Conyers' blog about recounting the 3 counties in OH that had some odd results, and where Bush got a huge margin over Kerry. Cuyahoga is another possibility and Franklin Country is being investigated by VoteWatch aka, the Election Sciences Institute. I am not sure their work will include any recounts, however.

As far as the cost, if it cost the Glibs >$100,000 to hand count 3% of the vote in 88 counties, what makes you think it would cost so much less to count 100% of the vote in 3 counties? Either way, you're counting approx 3% of the votes in the state, perhaps more if the 3 counties are densely populated. So tell me, why the big discount? Does Blackwell give DU members a special rate?

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Bill Bored]

128. Because I am asking you to explain the discrepancy.

Why did the Glibs have to pay >$100,000 and you say now it's free? If there is a simple answer such as, "that was before the Inauguration", or something, then just tell us.

It seems that you don't know the answer and I have other research to do. This is YOUR issue so you should have all the facts.

The reason DUers want to know how YOU voted is simple:

To determine if you have a sincere desire to get to the truth or you are just covering for your guy W. They want to assess your motives. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I don't consider myself to be a true believer in much of anything on this earth. That attitude is dangerous. But I think I know how easy it is to rig votin' systems and given that knowledge I do not have much confidence in the results of the last election. Sure more proof is needed that outright fraud occurred, but it certainly hasn't been disproved and that's a pretty sorry state for a democracy to find itself in, whether it's generally known or not.

Why don't you write to Bob Fitrakis, for example, and ask why there hasn't been a citizens recount in Ohio?

As far as Florida, a few votes per precinct is all it would take to swing an election in some states. FL has lots of paperless machines, so there could have been massive shifts on those machines and fewer in the Op Scan counties. So when you say "the discrepancies are not significant" they may need to look at more precincts, and count ALL the ballots cast. Did you answer that one about the absentees and early voting? No, you didn't.

And there is also the issue of voter suppression and disenfranchisement in Ohio and elsewhere, not reflected in the exit polls. If as you believe, there was no election fraud, then THAT could have swung the outcome just as easily.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[Bill Bored]

140. I already told you I asked John Conyers to look into this.

He has a keen interest in what went on in Ohio.
So I do not disagree with this in principle.

If Adolfo is out there, I'm sure he will comment on the Recount Florida effort.

The questions are whether the absentee/early votes were recounted and whether they intend to do more precincts, and how were the precincts selected thus far?

Thank you.

Now do you know how long Ohio has to preserve those paper ballots?

[Melissa G]

132. ROTFLMAO!!!!

'Anyway - I did not vote. I disliked all the candidates, and I refuse to vote for "lesser evil"."
yet you spend night after night trying to save DUers from the error of our ways...TOO FUNNY!!!!

[Bill Bored]

134. Actually, he must be a Democrat

because the exit polls (adjusted version) said THEY all stayed home!

Or maybe he just voted on a DRE. Same difference!

[Melissa G]

138. Still LOL!! ...BB post adds further convulsive spurt...ROTF....n/t

[Melissa G]

127. Ah Q, are you trying to compete with Shrub for the Great Misleader

Title? This question is BOGUS...
'What I mean by "couple of DUers with a few hundred bucks" are the personal recounts that it is possible to do today, with the minimum $ outlay. So - if "the paper trails on the machines have to be recounted to count" - why are you not there with bells on recounting away?'

This recount happened in 2000 with no DU outlay whatsoever.. the Florida paper consortium counted the votes all kinds of ways and in all the ones that really mattered... GORE WON! I am not interested in being sidetracked by your inconsequential BS. MSM both discovered this information and then Buried it. 911... don't you remember? Where have you been?
This is a side issue... a muddy one at that....but muddy, murky waters seem to be where you like to take discussions. What was that word you wanted evidence of? oh yeah... "disruptive".
A verifiable vote, a transparent election process and a Free Investigative media. This is what we need to bring back our democracy. Stay focused on fighting for this Q. Jump on this bandwagon Q. Got a seat saved for you!

[Bill Bored]

130. Actually, the results came out on 11/11, but I think you're right, Melissa

[Melissa G]

133. Right Bill, the media was covering in support of the the wartime *resident

and buried the story. There were no Headlines that said GORE WON Florida. Most folks have no idea. Media complicity. Just like the Sorry war coverage we are still getting from the MSM.

[Bill Bored]

135. No kidding? There's a war on? nt

[Melissa G]

139. BB..You are killing me with your humor...laughing so hard

I cannot breathe. resorting to smilies 'cuz I can't type...:rofl:

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[Melissa G]

141. Can't answer you yet Q... Still convulsing... ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

about your not voting.....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ...:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl: ....:rofl:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[Melissa G]

143. I nominate Q for President! Since you are busy saving those of us on this

site from ourselves, spending all your days and nights showing us the error of our ways for Free..(for free, right?)..that certainly shows a great deal of civic mindedness. Run for President Q! Then you would have someone to vote for! ....:rofl: You are priceless!

[Bill Bored]

123. Not necessarily. That was more of a general comment,

but it might be applied to FL and NM for example.

[Melissa G]

129. tabulators, tabulators, tabulators...n/t

[Bill Bored]

131. Not tabulators...election management systems. nt

[Melissa G]

108. Now that is some classic Rovian BS...

Do you have a talking points memo you are typing from?

[qwghlmian]

110. Do you?

Is one of your talking points "when unable to argue, attack the person you're arguing with"?

[Melissa G]

116. Are you Rove? Do you feel attacked? Are you unfamiliar with

Republican talking points?