Reply #44: For you, exit polls are not proof? Statistics is a science, not a theory.

[Stevepol]

Exit polls, as Steven Freeman says in his paper on the unexplained vote anomalies, are accepted all over the world as being accurate barometers of the result of elections. In Germany, the exit polls are used to determine the winner until the votes can be counted (usually takes two weeks) because they have been found to be nearly 100% reliable. So when Freeman says that the possiblity that the differences between the exit poll numbers and the actual results in just the three critical states of OH, FL, and PA happened by chance is one in 250 million -- this does not strike you as a smoking gun?

That's not to mention a dozen other statistical facts that are even more telling as to the top 11 swing states, the number of states where the deviation from the exit polls was in Bush's favor as opposed to the number where the deviation was in Kerry's favor, etc. etc. etc. etc.

At what point could you say there's a smoking gun? Because with electronic voting machines it's either impossible to have, or highly unlikely that you will have, any recount using hand counted paper ballots. That is, there's no way you can ever "prove" that fraud took place. In every other country in the world exit polls are the accepted way of discovering if there is fraud in elections. Statistical regressions are perfectly acceptable in court to show criminal activity when you're talking about embezzlement or any of a number of other crimes.

So what's the prob? If you were in court and the defense said that the blood on the weapon, on the floor, in the car, on the glove belonged to the defendant with 99.9999% certainty, that wouldn't be a smoking gun? You would vote for acquittal because you couldn't be sure?