Exit poll versus Machine Tally

[jamac]

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif

What me worried?

[PBG4 Dude]

Yea, I had been wondering about this myself. I am glad that my state hasn't switched from the electromechanical machines we use for voting.

What worries me the most is how states like Florida decided it was OK to use voting machines with no backup / recount abilities. No audit trail? Are you on crack?!?!

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Yea, I had been wondering about this myself. I am glad that my state hasn't switched from the electromechanical machines we use for voting.

What worries me the most is how states like Florida decided it was OK to use voting machines with no backup / recount abilities. No audit trail? Are you on crack?!?!
Did they steal the election?

Could they have done it?

(edit: i know they didn't, i just wish that they had because I can't believe the guy actually won.)

[MarcUK]

If its computerised anything is possible.

I'd like to know the authenticity of the graphic before I pass judgement.

[Fran441]

There wasn't any electronic voting in my town in New Hampshire. Are you sure that graph is right?

[bunge]

New Hampshire did have electronic voting, but it was all with paper receipts. Same, I believe, as Nevada. I need to see graphs like this for all states, but exit polling is generally very accurate. Much more accurate than a 5 point swing. Exit polls are used to verify results in third world country elections because they're accurate.

So while a point or two off makes sense, 5-8 points in either direction is a bad sign.

[Towel]

Ohio also did not use electronic voting machines, but they did use Diebold machines to tally the results. But all of Ohio should have a local paper trail (mostly hanging-chad punchcards IIRC).

[groverat]

There should always be a paper trail and all electronic systems should be 100% open.

I cannot believe in a nation as technology rich as ours there is so much uncertainty.

[kneelbeforezod]

This doesn't exactly inspire confidence either...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041105/D865R1DO0.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

[Ra]

Didn't the company responsible for the electronic voting machines say they were dedicated to helping Bush win reelection? Not sure where I read that...

Anyway, here's more to be worried about:
Glitch gave Bush extra votes in Ohio (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html)
Touchscreen voting troubles reported (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/03/electronic.voting.ap/index.html)

[kneelbeforezod]

Walden O'Dell, the chairman of the board and chief executive of Ohio based Diebold, wrote in a letter last year that he was committed to "helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."

Omaha based ES&S, an even bigger manufacturer of voting machines, also has strong Republican party (as well as Christian fundamentalist) ties.

[Fran441]

New Hampshire did have electronic voting, but it was all with paper receipts.

I had a paper ballot and used a marker to fill out ovals when I voted......

[bunge]

Originally posted by Fran441
I had a paper ballot and used a marker to fill out ovals when I voted......

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply ALL of New Hampshire had electronic voting, just that it was in use in New Hampshire.

[Scott]

I think we need to ask what Karl Roves involvement in this was? To be safe he should just be arrested and face charges later.

[Fran441]

The implication here is that electronic voting was a farce and that some results were manipulated, correct?

If that's the case and electronic voting was a factor in New Hampshire given the exit polls, then why didn't they go all the way and put President Bush and Governor Benson in the lead?

Instead, Kerry beat Bush, Lynch beat Benson, and Gottesman beat Haytayan in the local State Senate race by 147 votes.

I'm not saying that electronic voting is a good thing because I don't think it is. I think the United States should have a uniform system of voting. Everyone should have the same kind of ballot and vote in the same manner. The way we vote shouldn't be different from county to county or town to town.

All that being said, I'm sure there were some strange incidents involving electronic voting this time around. But my state, New Hampshire, elected a Democrat for President, a Democrat for Governor, and could have elected a Democrat for Senator had there not been the unfortunate incident which led to "Granny D" being the only one on the ballot (the original candidate's campaign manager stole all of the money and fled the country).

Had there really been a massive conspiracy involving vote fraud, wouldn't New Hampshire have gone to the Republicans? There are enough Democrats in the State Legislature now to prevent vetoes from being overturned because of this election. There is a Democrat Governor who unseated a first term Governor in our state for the first time in almost 100 years. NH was the only state to go from being a "Red State" to a "Blue State".

Don't you think that if there was some kind of "conspiracy", the Republicans would have made an effort to keep NH as a "Red State", to show that President Bush lost no states that he won in 2000, to keep a Republican Governor in power, and to keep the State Legislature overwhelmingly Republican?

I wish that the election had turned out differently, it didn't. Did people try and 'steal' the election? Maybe. It remains to be seen. But unless the electronic voting machines were wrong to the turn of 3.5 million to 4 million votes, people need to realize that more people wanted Bush to be President then Kerry.

[curiousuburb]

Best "disgruntled" (with process? result?) reaction:

http://viking.necrolounge.com/archives/fckthis.jpg ;)

And if you're into the hackability of an election technically or allegedly,
http://blackboxvoting.com has tips, and reports of funny business this week.
http://blackboxvoting.org has 1/2 hr documentary online.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by groverat
There should always be a paper trail and all electronic systems should be 100% open.

I cannot believe in a nation as technology rich as ours there is so much uncertainty. Don't worry. I think we will catch up to third world countries in a couple more cycles. We're almost there.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Fran441
The implication here is that electronic voting was a farce and that some results were manipulated, correct?

If that's the case and electronic voting was a factor in New Hampshire given the exit polls, then why didn't they go all the way and put President Bush and Governor Benson in the lead?

Because you don't know the totals from all of the other machines if and when you fudge the numbers in one specific machine. Plus, you can only sway the numbers in one county so far because there are only so many voters in one county. That means if you don't have control of every county you can't sway all of the numbers, and that means you can only pull the percent so far without someone noticing (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10103910.htm?1c).

Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

And to me it's important to note that the implication is that results were manipulated, but not necessarily intentionally.

[Fran441]

Now the Nader campaign is demanding a manual recount of votes in New Hampshire. Does anyone else find it strange that Nader is challenging the only state that changed from "Red" to "Blue"?

Nader only made it on the ballot in NH, btw, because petitions were passed around Republican Rallies for the President. This strikes me as *very* strange.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Fran441
The implication here is that electronic voting was a farce and that some results were manipulated, correct? They could've been manipulated. Did you watch the mini documentary? Those machines are connected to the web via modem and are ridiculously easy to access according to experts.
If that's the case and electronic voting was a factor in New Hampshire given the exit polls, then why didn't they go all the way and put President Bush and Governor Benson in the lead? Well, yes and no. Do the Republicans have the same "lap dogs" in NH that they have in FL and OH? You do know who the top Reps in OH and FL are right?
I'm not saying that electronic voting is a good thing because I don't think it is. I think the United States should have a uniform system of voting. Everyone should have the same kind of ballot and vote in the same manner. The way we vote shouldn't be different from county to county or town to town. Even if there isn't a uniform system, it's not that complicated. You get a receipt at McDonalds, yet we have "people" in the US fighting NOT to give voters one? (????)
Had there really been a massive conspiracy involving vote fraud, wouldn't New Hampshire have gone to the Republicans? There are enough Democrats in the State Legislature now to prevent vetoes from being overturned because of this election. FL and OH were the key states. NH wouldn't have mattered one way or another. It's just four electoral votes.
But unless the electronic voting machines were wrong to the turn of 3.5 million to 4 million votes, people need to realize that more people wanted Bush to be President then Kerry. Wrong. I think you're taking this "conspiracy" too far. The Republicans only needed 150 thousand votes to win in OH (which had a lot of optical scan machines with the "tally" machines provided by none other than Diebold) . They only needed 350 thousand in FL. They just found one machine who went plus 4000 for Bush. How many more of those are there?

OH problems: they wouldn't accept around 40,000 registrations because of the weight of the paper. A few thousand votes must have been "lost" there. I doubt all 40,000 ended up voting.

- They had something like 4000 challengers in precincts where they knew the votes wouldn't go for them. Wouldn't make sense to challenge your own party sympathizers.
Challenge minority voters, give them provisional ballots while slowing down the voting process. Lines were huge, it was rainy and cold. How many voters were lost there because of they had to leave for age, health and employment reasons?
- Last but not least, Diebold. Its CEO wrote Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Exact quote.

The guy was very actively involved in raising money for the GOP in Ohio. It's no secret.

[Scott]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
Best "disgruntled" (with process? result?) reaction:

http://viking.necrolounge.com/archives/fckthis.jpg ;)




You man the guy in the center of the screen or the guy in the background with the "Fuck this Shit" shirt on?

[crazychester]

Hey it's hard work keeping count of all those votes when you're busy spreading democracy in Iraq, you know.

Could all women and children please leave Fallujah now 'cause we're about to spread a bit of democracy about.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Fran441
If that's the case and electronic voting was a factor in New Hampshire given the exit polls, then why didn't they go all the way and put President Bush and Governor Benson in the lead?

Fran441,

Are you a little more clear on this question? Just curious.

[SDW2001]

I'm sure it will be no more than a matter of time until the claim is made that Bush stole the election again and that the exit polls were actually correct.

I'm sure there were isolated problems, but the chances that those problems could affect the outcome are statisically impossible. Please, for the sake of the Democratic Party, don't be a champion of the "elections stolen" cause.

[Anders]

Originally posted by jamac
http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif

What me worried?

Naaa. There is a clear explanation for this. One thing is to wote for Bush but who in their right mind would ever admit it to a pollster?

And to be true the least worry should be who of the two who was elected. Your democracy faces more troubling problems than that.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm sure there were isolated problems, but the chances that those problems could affect the outcome are statisically impossible.

See, now this is just you plainly talking out of your ass. There have already been articles provided that explain in detail how machines have screwed up and offices have been awarded to the wrong candidates. So please don't make shit up and speak out of your ass on subjects you don't want to understand.

Also, I don't give a fuck how the Democrats look if I'm against paperless electronic voting. As a matter of fact, I think anyone who isn't against paperless non-open software based machines isn't very smart. I would guess their I.Q. is lower than that of an average person. Just a guess.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm sure there were isolated problems, but the chances that those problems could affect the outcome are statisically impossible. Please, for the sake of the Democratic Party, don't be a champion of the "elections stolen" cause. The Democratic party already conceded. Maybe it's just that...gasp...voters who didn't get a receipt want to be sure their votes were counted correctly? Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to a voter getting a "receipt" aswell?

And please don't forget to post the "statistically impossible" proof you took out of your, er imagination.

[bunge]

More:

“We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire,’’ Nader wrote.

“These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5 percent to 15 percent over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.’’

From here (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041106/NEWS02/111060040/-1/news).

[Scott]

Have you ever heard of statistical fluctuation bunge? One out of every 20 trial will fall into the range of "significant". When in reality it's just part of the normal fluctuation.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
Have you ever heard of statistical fluctuation bunge? One out of every 20 trial will fall into the range of "significant". When in reality it's just part of the normal fluctuation.

But fluctuations do sometimes have causes.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Have you ever heard of statistical fluctuation bunge? One out of every 20 trial will fall into the range of "significant". When in reality it's just part of the normal fluctuation.

Yes, and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the vote. What's your point?

[Towel]

That's about the most useful thing Nader's done in 20 years. But he's just a left-wing nutjob who all Democrats hate, right? So it won't stain the party for him to bluster on about recounts and voting fraud.

Brilliant. :D

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But fluctuations do sometimes have causes.

Sure but when you are estimating 100s of counties it's a forgone conclusion that some of them will be two standard deviations from the mean. It's basic statistics.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Sure but when you are estimating 100s of counties it's a forgone conclusion that some of them will be two standard deviations from the mean. It's basic statistics.

But as sample sizes grow, accuracy also increases. Not in this election though. Polls in battleground states had larger sample sizes, less accuracy and pro-Bush shifts.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
But as sample sizes grow, accuracy also increases. Not in this election though. Polls in battleground states had larger sample sizes, less accuracy and pro-Bush shifts.

So do a detailed analysis of the sample size and expected variation then ignore it all because you can't do a repeated run.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
So do a detailed analysis of the sample size and expected variation then ignore it all because you can't do a repeated run.

What do you mean I can't do a repeated run?

EDIT: Ah, you mean to troll and nothing more. Well, same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

[bunge]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/5/18466/2846

The problem here is that Florida is reporting more votes for president than voters. Other ballot items were provided for reference.

My analysis shows that 12 counties have reported votes for Presidential candidates in excess of reported turnout. Six have discrepancies of less than 1% of turnout (though still more than 0, obviously, and worrisome), and I'll focus for now on the other six:

Glades: 2443 Bush/1718 Kerry/27 Other; Turnout 3446; 742 Discrepancy = 21.53% over turnout
Highlands: 25874 Bush/15346 Kerry/271 Other; Turnout 33996; 7495 Discrepancy = 22.05% over turnout
Miami-Dade: 358613 Bush/406099 Kerry/3841 Other; Turnout 716574; 51979 Discrepancy = 7.25% over turnout
Osceola: 43108 Bush/38617 Kerry/453 Other; Turnout 63589; 18589 Discrepancy = 29.23% over turnout
Palm Beach: 211894 Bush/327698 Kerry/3243 Other; 452061 Turnout; 90774 Discrepancy = 20.08% over turnout
Volusia: 111544 Bush/115319 Kerry/1495 Other; 209052 Turnout; 19306 Discrepancy = 9.24% over turnout

Collier: 83485 Bush/43713 Kerry/1154 Other; 127409 Turnout; 943 Discrepancy = 0.74% over turnout
Lake: 74382 Bush/48216 Kerry/1340 Other; 123751 Turnout; 187 Discrepancy = 0.15% over turnout
Leon: 51594 Bush/83830 Kerry/890 Other; 136229 Turnout; 85 Discrepancy = 0.06% over turnout
Okaloosa: 69654 Bush/19358 Kerry/695 Other; 89485 Turnout; 222 Discrepancy = 0.25% over turnout
Orange: 192390 Bush/193217 Kerry/2145 Other; 386104 Turnout; 1648 Discrepancy = 0.43% over turnout.

Additionally, as fellow dKos user DEA points out, Escambia county looks very strange, too. Turnout exceeded reported votes for president by 18193, 11.29% of turnout, making it a strong outlier.

This might not have anything to do with e-voting, but is relevant none the less.

Summary: There are 12 counties where currently recorded votes for Presidential candidates exceed reported turnout...by a total of 192,397 votes.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

edit: found a website suggesting that Bush stole the election but it's hilariously partial.

Here's the link anyway: http://mindprod.com/election.html

[bunge]

While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios matched the Kerry/Bush vote, and so did the optically-scanned paper ballots in the larger counties, in Florida's smaller counties the results from the optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - seem to have been reversed.

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

Ouch (http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=943&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0).

And, although elections officials didn't notice these anomalies, in aggregate they were enough to swing Florida from Kerry to Bush. If you simply go through the analysis of these counties and reverse the "anomalous" numbers in those counties that appear to have been hacked, suddenly the Florida election results resemble the Florida exit poll results: Kerry won, and won big.

http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm

[New]

This has potential to become the best conspiracy theory yet.

I'm intrigued. Can't wait for the oliver stone movie...

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I just had a thought about voting machines.

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?

What an appallingly bad idea.

[New]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I just had a thought about voting machines.

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?

What an appallingly bad idea.

or good, if you view it from that other side...

[Fran441]

http://www.intergate.com/~kdlarson/images/ColoradoResults.jpg

Wow. I've been reading some of this stuff over the weekend and there's definitely something strange going on. The Florida stuff was very strange and I saw this Colorado information as well. Maybe Colorado went for Salazar because Coors was totally nuts but the Kerry/Coors numbers are just so close it brings up the question of the vote totals being reversed.....

[bunge]

Originally posted by Fran441
Wow. I've been reading some of this stuff over the weekend and there's definitely something strange going on. The Florida stuff was very strange and I saw this Colorado information as well. Maybe Colorado went for Salazar because Coors was totally nuts but the Kerry/Coors numbers are just so close it brings up the question of the vote totals being reversed.....

It's not healthy at any rate. Anyone who welcomes non-verifiable results in an election really has their head on crooked. I'm against either party cheating and would accept Bush as president if I felt he legitimately won either election. But we know the 2000 election was, in essence, stolen and the numbers this time don't look good either.

[kneelbeforezod]

Wikipedia has a page covering the various controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularitie s

[shetline]

Originally posted by Gilsch
FL and OH were the key states. NH wouldn't have mattered one way or another. It's just four electoral votes.
If OH had gone to Kerry but not FL, NH's mere four electoral would have been key to securing a winning 272 EVs for Kerry. Without NH, Kerry would have still had only 268 EVs.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by shetline
If OH had gone to Kerry but not FL, NH's mere four electoral would have been key to securing a winning 272 EVs for Kerry. Without NH, Kerry would have still had only 268 EVs. That's true, considering Kerry lost NM, but I was parting from the premise of all things being equal to 2000.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Gilsch
That's true, considering Kerry lost NM....

Is it official?

[jamac]

http://72.3.131.10/

And this...

[sammi jo]

Exit polls are one of the most accurate and representative ways of gauging how the public voted. For this reason, exit polls are employed worldwide to ensure that elections are conducted fairly.

Here in the USA, here are some exit poll results versus actual election results, and the probabilities of such returns:

Wisconsin
Bush had 4% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 223 elections (892 years)

Pennnsylvannia
Bush had 5% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 1838 elections (7352 years)

Ohio
Bush had 4% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 223 elections (892 years)

Florida
Bush had 7% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 500,000 elections (2million years)

Minnesota
Bush had 7% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 500,000 elections (2 million years)

New Hampshire
Bush had 15% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 10^22 elections (longer than the age of the known universe)

North Carolina
Bush had 9% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 500,000,000 elections... (
(since a presidential election happens every 4 years, then the chance of such a discrepancy happening would be one in 2 billion years, half the age of the Solar System itself!) :wow:

(S.D.=1.53 for 95%
certainty level at +-3%)

Just imagine if it had happened the other way around..and Kerry had "won" over Bush in the same fashion....

[New]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Exit polls are one of the most accurate and representative ways of gauging how the public voted. For this reason, exit polls are employed worldwide to ensure that elections are conducted fairly.

Here in the USA, here are some exit poll results versus actual election results, and the probabilities of such returns:

Wisconsin
Bush had 4% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 223 elections (892 years)

Pennnsylvannia
Bush had 5% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 1838 elections (7352 years)

Ohio
Bush had 4% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 223 elections (892 years)

Florida
Bush had 7% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 500,000 elections (2million years)

Minnesota
Bush had 7% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 500,000 elections (2 million years)

New Hampshire
Bush had 15% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 10^22 elections (longer than the age of the known universe)

North Carolina
Bush had 9% over the exit polls
Probability: 1 out of 500,000,000 elections... (
(since a presidential election happens every 4 years, then the chance of such a discrepancy happening would be one in 2 billion years, half the age of the Solar System itself!) :wow:

(S.D.=1.53 for 95%
certainty level at +-3%)

Just imagine if it had happened the other way around..and Kerry had "won" over Bush in the same fashion....

gimmi a source sammy!

Or did you make the calculations yourself?

[Existence]

Randi Rhodes has information on her website with various examples of voting irregularities, eg. the number of votes exceeding the number of registered voters by over 1000% in some cases.

www.therandirhodesshow.com

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by bunge
Is it official? I'm not sure to be honest.

[lolo]

Since Kerry conceided the election, voter fraud in Ohio and Florida has received very little attention from the mainstream media.
The only exception is Keith Olbermann from MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Video: http://home.comcast.net/~hugh.moore/countdown_on_voting_irregs.wmv

[bunge]

Originally posted by Existence
Randi Rhodes has information on her website with various examples of voting irregularities, eg. the number of votes exceeding the number of registered voters by over 1000% in some cases.

www.therandirhodesshow.com

I hope everyone takes a look at this. According to Cuyahoga County, almost 100,000 votes above and beyond the number of people registered were cast in this county alone.

Partisanship aside, can anyone be happy with an election with this type of discrepancy?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Fran441
There wasn't any electronic voting in my town in New Hampshire. Are you sure that graph is right?

I've just read that New Hampshire did NOT have electronic voting machines, only optical scanners. Thought you'd like to know.