Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Group of University Professors Urges Investigation of 2004 Election


Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3% [1] . According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.

In other words, by random chance alone, it could not have happened. But it did.

Two alternatives remain. Either something was wrong with the exit polling, or something was wrong with the vote count.

Exit polls have been used to verify the integrity of elections in the Ukraine, in Latin America, in Germany, and elsewhere. Yet in November 2004, the U.S. exit poll discrepancy was much more than normal exit poll error (and similar to that of the invalid Ukraine election.[2] )

In a recent survey of US members of the world's oldest and largest computer society, The Association for Computing Machinery, 95% opposed software driven un-auditable voting machines [3] , of the type that now count at least 30% of U.S. votes. Today's electronic vote-counting machines are not required to include basic safeguards that would prevent and detect machine or human caused errors, be they innocent or deliberate. [4]

The consortium that conducted the presidential exit polls, Edison/Mitofsky, issued a report in January suggesting that the discrepancy between election results and exit polls occurred because Bush voters were more reticent than Kerry voters in response to pollsters.

The authors of this newly released scientific study "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Poll Discrepancies" consider this "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis to be highly implausible, based on extensive analysis of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data. They conclude, /“The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.”/

A state-by-state analysis of the discrepancy between exit polls and official election results shows highly improbable skewing of the election results, overwhelmingly biased towards the President.

The report concludes, “ We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.”

Ph.D. statisticians in America who have seen this group's preliminary exit poll study have not refuted it. This new study is a much more comprehensive an analysis of the exit poll discrepancies.

http://scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0504/S00001.htm

[DBruleU]

Blah Blah Blah...Time to get over it. Might as well get used to the Conservative Movement, it wont go away.

[Hotrod]

Lets see Im going with A) the exit polls were wrong. Thanks for the interesting leftist media update.

[TexanBob]

Surely there was vote fraud in the last election. Democrats are experts at it (see Milwaukee, Seattle, etc.). Until you're serious about fixing Democrat vote fraud, your attacks on the election ring of hollow opportunism.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like the study cited is just one more excuse for bush lemmings to reject science in favor of GeeDubya's Faith-Based Kool-Aid.

[ClevelandBronco]

Can I have cherry?

And yeah, the exit polls missed the mark. Big deal.

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cleveland Bronco should stick to those things he knows - like phoning in Michael Schiavo death threats and huffing Jesus-scented candles.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exit poll analysis points to 2004 election corruption

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/11284237.htm

There's a one-in-959,000 chance that exit polls could have been so wrong in predicting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, according to a statistical analysis released Thursday.

Exit polls in the November election showed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., winning by 3 percent, but President George W. Bush won the vote count by 2.5 percent.

The explanation for the discrepancy that was offered by the exit polling firm -- that Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polling -- is an "implausible theory," according to the report issued Thursday by US Count Votes, a group that claims it's made up of about two dozen statisticians.

Twelve -- including a Case Western Reserve University mathematics instructor -- signed the report.

Instead, the data support the idea that "corruption of the vote count occurred more freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds."

The report dismisses chance and inaccurate exit polling as the reasons for their discrepancy with the results.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Blah Blah Blah...Time to get over it. Might as well get used to the Conservative Movement, it wont go away.

It's been in the ascendent for 25 years now - since Reagan. Clinton was far from a liberal/progressive. Congress has gone from being a Democratic lock (for decades) to considerable GOP control.

I just don't see liberal/progressive ideas having much favor with American voters. And no, Kerry wasn't much of a liberal or a progressive either.

[Rascal]

I forgot who won again? Oh...that's right. Bush. Get over it. Talk about a sore loser.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's been in the ascendent for 25 years now - since Reagan. Clinton was far from a liberal/progressive. Congress has gone from being a Democratic lock (for decades) to considerable GOP control.

I just don't see liberal/progressive ideas having much favor with American voters. And no, Kerry wasn't much of a liberal or a progressive either.

The loons protesting outide of Terri Schiavo's hospice wanted you to believe this fantasy also.

Too bad the polls (and the courts) had to burst their collective bubble.

Nice attempt to deflect attention from the studies cited on this thread, though.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rascal

I forgot who won again? Oh...that's right. Bush. Get over it. Talk about a sore loser.

Ethically-challenged neocon-to-English translation:

"Fraud is OK when GeeDubya does it."

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Cleveland Bronco should stick to those things he knows - like phoning in Michael Schiavo death threats and huffing Jesus-scented candles.

That is some funny stuff...

[ClevelandBronco]

No doubt. The man is all about humor.

[Meck77]

LA I think you need to get out more often man. Perhaps you should give Bob's your Uncle's sister a call.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dude, that is SO wrong.

{/blowing chunks}

[TheDave]

Meck, i like you man...but i should definately neg rep your ass for that!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The loons protesting outide of Terri Schiavo's hospice wanted you to believe this fantasy also.

Too bad the polls (and the courts) had to burst their collective bubble.

Nice attempt to deflect attention from the studies cited on this thread, though.

There is no scientific data there. There is a statistical estimation. It's a mathematical projection. There is no mention of the methods used in the article either. One can manipulate statistics to 'read' whatever you want them to.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

There is no scientific data there. There is a statistical estimation. It's a mathematical projection. There is no mention of the methods used in the article either. One can manipulate statistics to 'read' whatever you want them to.

Wrong on all counts.

Try reading the article again and make an extra effort to comprehend what you're reading.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The report dismisses chance and inaccurate exit polling as the reasons for their discrepancy with the results.

Why? What evidence do they have to support or come to that decision other then their own bias.

BTW...I forgot who is president again? ROFL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Why? What evidence do they have to support or come to that decision other then their own bias.

Reading comprehension - it is a b****, eh?

Let's recap for the slow student:

According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.

A state-by-state analysis of the discrepancy between exit polls and official election results shows highly improbable skewing of the election results, overwhelmingly biased towards the President.

“The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.”/

“ We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.”

Ph.D. statisticians in America who have seen this group's preliminary exit poll study have not refuted it. This new study is a much more comprehensive an analysis of the exit poll discrepancies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

US CountVotes Response to analysis of 2004 exit poll study

Only reasonable explanation is fraud:

http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAn...sky-Edison.pdf

[football idiot]

if there assumptions are wrong, their statistics are worthless.

was it a random sample? were repubs cowed by militant Bush-haters (like LA-whackjob over here) and avoided pollsters to keep their vote personal and private (our RIGHT as Americans?)

the polls are always off. new rules in many places (polls 50-feet away from precincts etc.) mean only those pissed off or bored are going to go talk to these pollsters. I know after spending 3 hours in line I was ready to go to work, even if approached by a pollster I'd tell 'em to piss off.

there's hundreds of reasons their figures would be off. I'd put the ugliness of the campaign and the vitriol on both sides as a pretty good reason not to run and be counted by some media-slave pollster.....

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Reading comprehension - it is a b****, eh?

Let's recap for the slow student:

According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.

A state-by-state analysis of the discrepancy between exit polls and official election results shows highly improbable skewing of the election results, overwhelmingly biased towards the President.

“The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.”/

“ We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.”

Ph.D. statisticians in America who have seen this group's preliminary exit poll study have not refuted it. This new study is a much more comprehensive an analysis of the exit poll discrepancies.

Still no methods or data...waiting...waiting...

[Spider]

All I can say is , I voted for Kerry ....... I dont know what evryone else did .......