One more thing

[lapsedmodernist]

I want everyone to see this in case they didn't see me post it as a reply to someone:

This election was a fraud, it was stolen just like the 2000 election was stolen.

Look at a site which lists the exit polls before they were "corrected.” Correction is the procedure by which the exit polls are retrofitted to match the figures provided by the vote counting machines. It is easily done by changing the exit poll results, such as the late-night re-assignment of the Nevada exit poll scores which was done without varying the sample size.

Results can be also changed by other methods like screwing with the weighting (weighting in statistics is a coefficient assigned to elements of a frequency distribution in order to represent their relative importance).

So let's check out raw exit polls vs. announced results

Here is one list as an example of raw exit poll data:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=386

Then look at the results by state, such as here
http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults


The GOP says that the exit polls are not large enough samples and so there is a large random error in the results. If this were true, then the exit polls would
scatter on either side of the actual result, ESP. if the final result is so close to 50/50.

When we compare exit polls with actual results we see a skew - but ONLY in states which the GOP had declared to be the key states. The skew favors Bush every single time.

The exit poll results are not scattered about the mean, they are all on Kerry's side of the counts as issued by the states (except for a few of states where the final figures are very close to poll figures).

Here are the figures. They list the four contemporaneous and uncorrected exit polls. Kerry is listed first and Bush second in each pair of figures. Published = the figure presented as the vote count as of 10.00 a.m. EST on 11/3/04 (thanks to Democratic Underground)

AZ Poll one 45-55 Final 45-55 Published 44-55
CO Poll one 48-51 2nd 48-50 3rd 46-53 Published 46-53
LA Poll one 42-57 Final 43-56 Published 42-57
MI Poll one 51-48 Published 51-48 Published 51-48
IOWA Poll one 49-49 3rd 50-48 Final 49-49 Published 49-50
NM Poll one 50-48 2nd 50-48 3rd 50-48 Final 50-49 Published 49-50
ME 3rd 55-44 Published 53-45
NV: 3rd 48-49 Published 48-51
AR: 3rd 45-54 Published 45-54
MO Final 46-54 Published 46-53

These tracking polls are as expected and within the margin of error. But in othe states that is not the case. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Either the exit polls were wrong or the vote count is wrong:

WI Poll one 52-48 3rd 51-46 Final 52-47 Published 50-49
PA Poll one 60-40 3rd 54-45 Final 53-46 Published 51-49
OH Poll one 52-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 49-51
FL Poll one 51-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 47-52
MINN Poll one 58-40 3rd 58-40 Final 54-44 Published 51-48
NH Poll one 57-41 3rd 58-41 Published 50-49
NC Poll one 3rd 49-51 Final 48-52 Published 43-56

Taking the figures and measuring the size and direction of the poll to supposed vote count discrepancy, you will see:

OH Bush + 4%
FL Bush + 7%
NH Bush + 15%
NC Bush + 9%

etc.

Do your own research, there is plenty more.

ON EDIT Reposting from here:

...on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.

In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.

So we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits

vs.

A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits.

And finally, a word from the Global Monitors;

The global implications of the U.S. election are undeniable, but international monitors at a polling station in southern Florida said Tuesday that voting procedures being used in the extremely close contest fell short in many ways of the best global practices.

The observers said they had less access to polls than in Kazakhstan, that the electronic voting had fewer fail-safes than in Venezuela, that the ballots were not so simple as in the Republic of Georgia and that no other country had such a complex national election system.

"To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler," said Konrad Olszewski, an election observer stationed in Miami by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Comments

[dirtypages.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the numbers. I am completely convinced the election was stolen, and completely unsurprised that the media is silent on it.
Do you mind if I pass your little comparison around to some people (attributed to you or to anonymous, as you like) ?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

no, of course not, feel free.

[tomorrow-devil.livejournal.com]

Mm, well, I suppose you're pretty upset, so I guess I should apologize if I sounded antagonistic. I didn't mean to, and the info is useful. I will be showing it to people and getting opinions. You know.

[tomorrow-devil.livejournal.com]

I, however, am not convinced.

Regardless, it is time for something bigger to happen. Litigation and petitions won't be changing anything.

Sit and wait a few minutes, see what happens, see where the media runs, and see what sentiment is still boiling on the coasts. And let me know if either of you hear anything about the rev.

FYI, I did see some people with signs today, and I did ask them what they were willing to break. Wouldn't you know it, they flashed a peace sign!

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I, however, am not convinced.
show me where my math is wrong.

[tomorrow-devil.livejournal.com]

I can't. But I do know that this interpretation of why the exit polls don't match the election results is only one view among many. I'm more interested in it for it's riling potential rather than it's truth.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

how postmodern of you. Sometimes Occam's Razor is useful

[tomorrow-devil.livejournal.com]

I'm not being relative, I'm being practical.

Unless those numbers have the power to move hearts, so to speak, they're useless regardless of whether it's an accurate interpretation of the polls or not.

The Dems are meaningful to a lot of people, but not enough. Long explanations and involved analyses don't have broad enough resonance to help anything. Streamlined presentations of stats help with resonance, but not with credibility.

What's a girl to do? Polarize further? That part's inevitable. So, do it along stronger lines, maybe.

Multiculturalism wasn't an issue in the election. Women's rights was in the background in a lot of cases. The answer might be that we don't need another white male candidate.

The question in that case would be whether you really believe that the Democrats are all that better on those issues, and how people feel about the likely conflicts of interest that would result from that kind of presentation/platform/candidacy.

[pirat-ponton.livejournal.com]

isn't it funny how the exit polls showing this "election" was about "moral values" are supposedly accurate, but the ones showing kerry defeated bush "aren't"?

[twotoedsloth.livejournal.com]

Ooh, good point!

[(Anonymous)]

I'll be interested to read the final OSCE (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/field_activities/?election=2004us) report, though given the very paltry monitoring they were permitted to do, I don't expect much beyond the anecdotal. I was a member of an OSCE election monitoring mission to Kyrgyzstan in February 2000, where we deployed roughly the same number of observers as were sent to cover yesterday's election, but for a population approximately 1/60th the size. That election had its irregularities but, in hindsight, scrawling your mark on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box in the town yurt seems pretty fair. I mean, at least there was a paper trail.

Jacob

[twotoedsloth.livejournal.com]

That's where we went wrong. No yurts.

[theophile.livejournal.com]

thanks for this!

Voting Irregularities

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for compiling this information and posting it. As you probably know, Texas is one of those states with "no paper trail," and the following excerpts are taken from a recent article, "Instructor finds voting irregularity," published in San Antonio College's 'The Ranger' (article by Ricky Epinoza):

"When Joseph Kaufmann voted Oct.22 at the Great Northwest Library, his ballot for a straight party ticket seemed a little crooked.

The history professor at Palo Alto college decided on a straight ticket after waiting in line.

Reviewing his selections, he noticed everything seemed to be in order except one item.

'I pushed the Democratic ticket to get out of there and noticed Bush was selected instead of Kerry,' he said.
. . . .
After voting, Kaufmann spoke to an election official. 'He asked if I did anything unusual or leaned on the machine," he said. . . . "

[fructivore.livejournal.com]

Nice piece of work. Thanks for putting it together. Some of the links are down, sadly, ostenibly from heavy traffic.

[twotoedsloth.livejournal.com]

They're back up now.

[daeglan.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing... I hate the fact the E-Voting seems to lack even basic computer security. I like the idea of E-Voting it will be the futer.. but come on lets safe guard it.

Thank you for this I will pass on.

[thedimka.livejournal.com]

You are right,
they play dirty, but they always did it.
democrat have their own tricks. And if Kerry would win you would not try to investigate it so hard. We lost not because of some stolen votes.
The reason is organization and ideology.
Kerry and Gore are just not good enough.
And if democrats are so smart, we have to outsmart our opponents. And if opponent cheats it has to be caught by hand or prevented.
It is the fight for the featest and we just lost the fight.
It is sad, but we have to prepare better for the next one.
regroup think of a better strategy.
results will not be changed now. but maybe investigations can be started,
perpetrators can be found and brought to justice
Few democrats felt that Kerry was their best leader.
He was mostly ABB
and this is lame, it is not the way to fight

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

There are proven and substantiated links between the GOP and the company that manufactured the electronic machines. Voter suppression efforts came from the GOP side of things. So don't commit the fallacy of turning a general sentiment about "dirty politics" into an argument that a Kerry victory would have been achieved by the same methods. The Bush administration holds the monopoly on the contemporary methods of electoral fraud.

I agree with your other points.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

On this "election", the verdict is still out. in 2000, it's clear that what happened is not "sad", it is "criminal" -- an election was aborted -- the votes cast were not counted.

will the votes be counted in this election? were some of the votes that were cast stolen? that's what we're still hoping to find out. If the answers are, respectively, "no" and "yes", then that is not "sad", any more than it is "sad" if someone holds you up with a gun and takes your money.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

"they play dirty, but they always did it."

there are three reasons i've heard people give after elections:

1. the other side is "evil" (criminal)
2. this side is stupid/incompetent/not ruthless (enough)
3. the voters are stupid/uninformed/mislead

the mass media (and you, apparently) uniformly chose reason 2. they're unwilling to say reason 1, and unwilling to spend money investigating the possibility (so much for the "rough draft of history" motto).

for reason 3, i'll point out recent history:

- this country elected nixon, and then re-elected him in a landslide

- this country elected reagan, and then re-elected him in a landslide

- this country supported the assault on iraq, until recently, and a large number of them continue to support shrub&cheney despite huge reasons not to.

there is a significant fraction of the voting population that lives with a radically different world view than those who did not vote for shrub. the idea that this is a nation of tolerant, brave, generous people who are sometimes lead by bad people ignores this country's distant and recent history.

it was probably my fault...

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

i "voted" on tuesday, but i have no idea who for. maybe i voted for shrub. maybe i'm one of those 3 to 4 million. i pushed the buttons on the touch screen (yes, we had those), and pushed the "vote" button. after that, i have no idea what happened, and not much chance of proving anything about it.

here's an idea that i read yesterday that sounds like it's worth pursuing: get voting data from 2000 and data from 2004. identify those precincts that used paper ballots in 2000 that used electronic ballots in 2004, and compare. particularly, given the exit polling data for ohio and florida this should be done to find out what is going on.

is the country (or, rather, the majority of people who bother to vote) really as foolish (or vile, or whatever) as this "election" has demonstrated? we have to start with being able to verify the election process (to hell with trusting -- 2000 taught that to anyone with a brain and eyes and the will to use them). right now, i don't know what the result "means" because i don't know really happened. california gets a auditable voting starting with 2006. it's time for us to get this on referenda for 2006 in the rest of the country.

back in 2000, the new yorker had the following cartoon: two guys are sitting at a bar. one guy has a gun, a mask, and a bag of money. he's saying to the other guy "get over it."

without incumbency, would there have been ANY chance that shrub would be in office in late january 2005? he wouldn't even have been a candidate.

there was a robbery in 2000. the robbers took the money to buy a house. now, we're told they're "legitimate" home owners. and we're not even sure they bought the house.

[(Anonymous)]

I spent all day yesterday getting riled up about conspiracy theories, and then the Times goes and publishes this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05poll.html?th

For chrissake, can't they even leave us the solace of rage? Now I'm just sad. I mean, sadder.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I read the NYT article and it underreports in a big way. Look at Greg Palast's last article. Not a peep about the million votes thrown out even before the election started. We aren't talking about voter suppression, even. The NYT article is just pacification of the lowest sort. Thankfully, not everyone is ready to be pacified. Blackboxvoting.org is not letting this go, Bev Harris is filing a largerst case in the history of the Freedom of Information Act.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

"pacification" is one word. how about "capitulation" or "surrender"? the easiest way to force your will on someone else is to convince them to give up.

i like the suggestion i read recently for the next candidate to oppose the repubs: announce your candidacy in Jan. '05. give a focal point to the resistance. begin raising money and running informational ads. the democrats in Jan. '01 demonstrated that they're not going to do anything. and the mass media are already buying into myth of the shrub "mandate". shrubco&cheney have made clear that they're going to attempt to undo every bit of progress made since the 30s, especially the progress that was made while the democrats held the house for forty years from the time of McCarthy up to "Newt" G.

[boymaenad.livejournal.com]

*nods* the article simply makes the assumption that the voting results were accurate, and therefore the polls were inaccurate. but the poll people sound like they're just guessing as to why, which means they may or may not be.

(I am one of the several who've linked to this page. thanks for posting it.)

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

yeah, I saw you linked also to blackboxvoting and someone linked to Greg Palast's story on your page. What can I say, the worst is when people look at this and say, well, I don't know math, but I think it's important to accept that this happened and refocus our energy on 2008. I hate everyone.

[(Anonymous)]

This article (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-38.htm) from Thom Hartmann is worth a read, if you haven't seen it already.

Jacob

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

i don't know if you saw it, but the AP reported on Wednesday that between 5 1/2 and 6 MILLION provisional and absentee ballots were yet to be counted. even if these votes are distributed among the country and have no effect on the electoral college count, they could have an effect on the popular count. it could be the second time shrub did not get the majority of the popular vote (nevermind for a second the votes that were stolen).

two reforms needed: 1) audit-able elections, and 2) get rid of the electoral college. the first one can happen pretty soon in a lot of states. the second one is much harder. we need evidence that the electoral college is thwarting the democratic will of the population.