They could have hacked election 2002, what is the probability they did?

[TruthIsAll]

I have posted this a few times already. But in light of today's Diebold bombshells, lets do it again.

Thanks to Bev Harris and others, we know that there was the possibility of a back door hack of the voting machine computing programs. They had the means, they had the motive, they had the opportunity. Especially in Georgia. But did they do it? Can we determine, based on the final polling and election results, the probability that the machines were hacked? No proof, just probability….

Of course we can. Take off your tinfoil hats and put on your thinking caps…

This is a 2002 Election Probability Analysis. The probabilities cover all cases, assuming 8 to 34 CRITICAL SENATE elections. The mathematical model used was the Cumulative Binomial Distribution.

Using the the published SCOOP analysis of the 2002 election results, and the fact that an improbably high number fell outside the latest polling margin off error, I prepared a probability analysis to determine the likelihood that 4 out of 8 critical elections would fall outside the 3% margin of error (MOE). In other words, there is a 95% (19/20) probability that each poll would turn out to be correct within the MOE. Thus, the chances of a given election falling OUTSIDE of the MOE is 1 out of 20 (5%).

Here are the results for 8 critical Senate elections:
..........Last Poll %...........Election % Result
........Dem.....Rep.....Diff....Dem.....Rep.....Diff...Chg OutMOE
NC......42......48......-6......45......54......-9.......-3...0
MN......47......39.......8......47......50......-3.......11...5
AK......51......46.......5......54......46.......8........3...0
GA......49......44.......5......46......53......-7.......12...6
TX......48......49......-1......43......55......-12.....-11...5
MO......46......46.......0......49......50......-1.......-1...0
NH......46......40.......6......47......51......-4.......10...4
CO......45......47......-2......45......51......-6.......-4...0

The Red flag states: MN, TX, GA, NH (all exceeded the MOE)

I maintain that only 8 were really critical and hotly contested (the ones that the GOP focused on). All others were one-sided for the Dem or GOP incumbents. These should NOT be included in the analysis, but I have done so to determine the hypothetical results, which showed that 4 out of 34 elections falling outside the MOE is also unlikely to happen.

Now 4 out of 8 CRITICAL elections fell outside the latest poll Margin of Error (MOE), a very weird (and rare) occurrence, indeed. So, let's see the way the probabilities are effected as we INCREASE the number of CRITICAL states in our sample. The probability that AT LEAST x out of the N CRITICAL senate elections will be outside the MOE (+ or - 3%) is:

Total sample Probability Matrix
Elections Elections outside MOE
...........3...............4..............5..............6
8 0.005788 0.000371751 1.54049E-05 4.0082E-07

10 0.011504 0.001028498 6.36898E-05 2.75458E-06
13 0.024508 0.003102996 0.000286569 1.97497E-05
16 0.042938 0.007003908 0.000857312 8.08995E-05
20 0.075484 0.015901526 0.00257394 0.000329294
25 0.127106 0.034090601 0.007164948 0.001212961
30 0.187821 0.060771561 0.01563551 0.003282486
34 0.240651 0.088128675 0.02591563 0.006269405


From the table:
The probability of 4 out of 8 elections falling outside the MOE is .000371, or 1 out of 2695.

Now, if ALL 34 elections were hotly contested and critical (obviously, not the case) then the probability that 4 out of 34 would be outside the MOE is .0881, or 1 out of 11, still unlikely.

But we are not done yet...
Since ALL four elections fell for the Republicans, the final odds are 1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2695, or 1 out of 43,120.

Yes, Virginia, it probably happened. Big time.

What we have is a mathematical confirmation of an intuitive feeling. Something very strange happened in 2002. The election results seemed out of whack. Zogby himself said he was NEVER that far off. It makes you wonder. VNS exit polls were not published. And there were 22,000 Diebold computers installed in Georgia, which we now know were patched the weekend before the election.

[fshrink]

1. Since

The republicans very existence is based on manipulation, lie, deceit and expertise in disinformation, that is likely. Probably not all the time and on a large scale but here or there, whenever possible. Ironically, the right, worldwide, has become more expert at that kind of angle than the leninist bureaucracy itself ever was!

[Cocoa]

2. 100%

if they thought they would get away with it, they wouldn't hesitate, with very few exceptions.

They're thieves, after all. Their whole agenda is a fraud.

[Punkingal]

3. I think they did......

that election made no sense, based on the polls. We should not have lost ALL those races that were so close.

[Eloriel]

4. And some that we lost weren't that close!

Really. The pre-election polls in GA for Cleland and Barnes showed them ahead by 5 points or more, and they ended up losing by a significant percentage just days later.

Actually -- found my link. There were 13 and 16 point swings, respectively, in just a few days when nothing newsworthy happened to account for that.

http://www.bartcop.com/111102fraud.htm

Eloriel

[JCMach1]

6. Same thing in FL-- polls were much closer in the Gov's race

AND my own for Florida Legislature...

My polling had me up by 2%

[Merlin]

7. This is the surprise I remember, too. But, here's the rub...

as an old JFK conspiracy hand, I've learned well that you cannot do a damn thing about a well executed conspiracy unless you can absolutely nail it dead-to-rights, as they say. You've got to have overwhelming, incontrovertible proof in order to upset an apple cart so enormous. Nobody takes you seriously unless they sense you have the goods.

TIA's statistics and Bev Harris's discoveries are very compelling, as is our own common sense. But in the end, it's all circumstantial, and insufficient to build a case upon.

That doesn't mean it's not extremely important to know. The value of learning these thing is that we are forewarned--or certainly should be--and can prevent it in the future if we make the effort.

So I applaud this work, but only if it is on a going forward basis. Absent some "smoking gun" I wouldn't want to spend the energy necessary to "make a federal case" out of it.

So the real question is, what can we do to make sure we are not fooled twice?

[UpstateNYDem]

5. I disagree

Let me preface by saying I have experience in the polling arena.

NH, GA and MN can be explained fairly easily. 80% of the time undecided voters break toward the challenger, typically because the voters have already had time to judge the incumbent and if they remain unconvinced at this late in the game, it is unlikely the will go with the incumbent. While Shaheen and Mondale weren't incumbents persay, their records were definately better known then their challengers. In all three of these cases the Democrat's total was within the margin of error. Also as the numbers approach 50% the margin of error is actually higher than reported, the MoE on these was probably closer to + or - 4.

They could all be the fault of another type of error, there are many errors besides just stastical. The methods used by the pollster could have effected it as well, incorrect weighting or too loose a screening could have skewed the results as well.

[TruthIsAll]

12. UpstateNYDem, your post is incoherent..every statement is bogus..

"NH, GA and MN can be explained fairly easily. 80% of the time undecided voters break toward the challenger, typically because the voters have already had time to judge the incumbent and if they remain unconvinced at this late in the game, it is unlikely the will go with the incumbent".

TELL THAT TO ZOGBY, AND HE WILL TELL YOU THAT HE NEVER SAW HIS POLLS SO FAR OFF..


"While Shaheen and Mondale weren't incumbents persay, their records were definately better known then their challengers. In all three of these cases the Democrat's total was within the margin of error"

THE MOE IS PLUS OR MINUS 3%. DID YOU READ MY POST? THEY WERE ALL OUTSIDE THE MOE..

"Also as the numbers approach 50% the margin of error is actually higher than reported, the MoE on these was probably closer to + or - 4".

THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE POLL PERCENTAGES AND THE MOE; THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. THE MOE IS PLUS/MINUS 3%, REGARDLESS IF THE POLL SPLIT IS 50/50 OR 55/45..

"They could all be the fault of another type of error, there are many errors besides just stastical. The methods used by the pollster could have effected it as well, incorrect weighting or too loose a screening could have skewed the results as well".

THESE WERE ALL PROFESSIONAL POLLSTERS, ZOGBY BEING THE MOST WELL-KNOWN. DON'T TELL ME THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
THE FAULT WAS THE REPUG DATA MANIPULATION. READ BEV HARRIS.

[whirlygigspin]

8. probability factor

how about 18,181
to one.

ahaha

[rhite5]

9. Thank You. Now let them prove they did not tamper

What we have is a mathematical confirmation . . .

THANK YOU, TruthIsAll, and we need to remind ourselves it is up to THEM to prove the vote totals were not tampered with. IT IS NOT UP TO US to prove they were.

We can be sure they were studying everything: late polls, racial and party demographics, voting history in each precinct, margin recount requirements, the works. All to make sure they would stay within the margin of error if they possibly could and still win. But they did not stay within those limits, as your analysis shows, probably because they could not do so and still win.

And how many other (non Senate) races were tangentially affected (races we have not studied or for which there was no polling data)? We will never know.

[bpilgrim]

10. the other problem...

they can't be audited so they can always say we don't know 100%
and that will be good enough for many - think about how they still defend their position on GW :argh:

we need a paper trail and a national citizens election monitering/polling group before we can feel confident in our voting system.

btw: do you have this published somewhere on the web besides DU?

i would love to link to it.

:hi:

thanks TIA :toast:

peace

[fabius]

11. Let's get the UN

to monitor the 2004 elections. :D

[TruthIsAll]

13. Only posted at DU, but copy and paste if you want..

....