Skip to main content

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model (TVM) is a combination of 1) pre-election Monte Carlo Simulation Election Model, based on the latest state polling and 2) post-election True Vote Model, based on a feasible estimate of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding estimated vote shares. The model will be updated periodically for the latest state and national polls.

MODEL LINK

The model projections assume the election is held on the date of the latest poll date.

The latest state and national polls show that Obama has a 2-4% lead over Romney.

Obama needs a True Vote of at least 55% in order to overcome the historic 4-5% red-shift (the fraud factor). In other words he needs to win by a 10% True Vote Margin.

Pre-election Polls and the”Horse Race”

The Real Clear Politics website archives the latest polls on a daily basis. The model uses 2008 recorded vote shares for states that have not yet been polled. These are one-sided states in which the outcome is a near certainty...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

Virtually all of the current national polls are of Registered Voters (RV). An exception is Rasmussen, a GOP pollster, whose daily tracking poll is a Likely Voter (LV) subset of the RV.

One month before the election, pollsters convert from the full RV sampleto the LV subsample using the "Likely Voter Cutoff Model". The pollsters expect there will be fraud, so they prepare for it. The RV polls are transformed to LV subsets in order to promote an artificial “horse race”. The pundits want to predict the recorded vote. The closer they are, the better they look. But they never mention that it’s the fraud factor that gets them close. LV polls are usually good predictors of the fraudulent recorded vote.

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model effectively understates the potential turnout of millions of new Democratic voters who do not pass the LVCM. The pollsters and the pundits invariably claim that the race is "tightening" and LV polls are better predictors. And it's: they are better predictors of the fraudulent recorded vote.

1988-2008 Exit Poll Discrepancies

Based on the historic record, Obama needs at least 55% to overcome systemic built-in fraud. In 2008 Obama had a 58% weighted average in the unadjusted STATE exit polls (76,000 respondents). He had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (a 17,836 respondent subset of the state polls).

But for the same 17,836 respondents, the FINAL National Exit poll was forced to match the 52.9% recorded share. Obama’s 18% state aggregate unadjusted exit poll margin was reduced to 7.5% But that’s to be expected; all finals are forced to match the recorded vote.

Election fraud cut 4% from the average 1988-2008 Democratic presidential share. The Democrats won the unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%, but their recorded vote margin was just 48-46%.

Democratic True Vote = Recorded Vote + Fraud Factor

Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded votes that were predicted by the final pre-election LV polls.

2012 Election True Vote Model

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They Expect The New Voter ID Laws To Win It.... (6+ / 0-)

    for them.  They have to win this year.  By 2016 the demographic shift will literally be out of their control.

    They know they have to steal it this year...or they will be up the creek despite their $6 BILLION dollar Citizens United paddle.

    •  Yes they are desperate. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mookins

      They know they are dead after this cycle.

      •  The GOP doesn't have to win the Presidency (0+ / 0-)

        they just have to hold the House.  That will ensure that the worst consequence of this election is that Obama replaces Ginsberg and perhaps one other liberal justice on the Court.  My guess is that if Obama is re-elected, Ginsberg steps down next summer - she might not make it four more years.  If the GOP wins the Senate, then her replacement will be less liberal than her.  Who are we kidding, ANY replacement will likely be less liberal than her, regardless of who controls the Senate.  Aside from the Court, all Obama will be able to do is stop the GOP agenda.

        They have a plan to let all of the tax cuts expire if Obama doesn't cave to extend all the cuts, then they'll use public outrage over the tax hike and hold the government hostage to get the tax cuts back.  Beyond that, it will be hunker down and obstruct until 2014 and try to win the Senate.

        Every Republican I've talked to has virtually conceded that Romney can't win.  They're focused on holding the House and trying to win the Senate.

  •  These landslide predictions are dangerous. (5+ / 0-)

    This will not be a cakewalk.

    "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 09:37:53 PM PDT

  •  So the election polls are changed? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Votes Must Count, Troubadour, mookins

    To match the reported vote?

    Creepy

    •  Yes, the exit polls. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, codairem, mookins

      The exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote.

    •  Look at the Wisconsin recall election. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem, Votes Must Count, kalmoth

      Nearly seven % point shift between exit polling at the end of voting and the official result within an hour of polls closing.  They really get brazen with election rigging.

      Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

      by Troubadour on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 09:53:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  or the exit poll was off by nearly 7 points (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cph

        Or, conceivably, somewhere in between.

        •  I'm not interested in your denialist trolling. (0+ / 0-)

          I've done the research and I presented it here for public comment.  The Wisconsin recall was rigged.

          Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

          by Troubadour on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:42:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, the Recall was very much rigged. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            The truth will come out.

          •  polling... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cph

            Except all the public polls showed about the recorded margin. Exit polls are off because they tend to overrespresent urban areas which are more Democratic. There are a bunch of rural areas that are Republican, but it's not worth it to have an exit pollster at a precinct that only logs a few dozen votes.

            •  No, they didn't. (0+ / 0-)

              The opinion polls were all over the place, and the most recent non-partisan poll before the election had it dead even.  And those are opinion polls based on arbitrary formulas of "likely" voters - exit polls are of ACTUAL voters.  I dealt with all these objections in the diary in which I laid out the facts surrounding the recall:

              Timeline of an Election Beyond Credulity

              The recall was rigged.  It happened.  Deal with it.

              Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

              by Troubadour on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 01:47:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  oversampling urban areas is not the problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              College Progressive

              Troubadour doesn't know much about exit polls, but it's true that the exit poll precincts are pretty representative of the state -- and the projection model can take account of any differences between past performance in those precincts and in the rest of the state. I can't personally vouch for Edison's projection model, but I really doubt that it is the problem.

              If you look back at the stuff about the 2004 election, the exit poll discrepancies in that election were pretty much accounted for (on average) by "Within Precinct Error" -- differences between the exit poll results and vote counts in particular precincts, not any disparity between the precincts in the exit poll sample and states as a whole. My best guess is that the same was true in the 2012 Wisconsin recall, although I don't think we know enough to say.

              You're right about the pre-election polls, and they are helpful in thinking about 2004 as well.

              Here in New York, the average WPE was around 12 points. The exit poll had Kerry winning the state by 31 points. New York is blue, but it isn't that blue. The pre-election polls showed Kerry with a lead in the high teens; he won by 18.3 points. I really don't know any informed observer who thinks Kerry really won New York by 31 points or even 25 -- no matter how much the diarist complains about Likely Voter Models. Nor do I know of any evidence, other than the exit poll results, that lever machines were hacked all over the state.

              Similarly in other states, where the exit poll discrepancies were largest, generally the official results were closer to the pre-election polls and expectations than to the exit poll results. Again, we're talking big differences that can't reasonably be attributed to model bias -- like Kerry leading the New Hampshire exit poll by 15 points. All the other evidence, including extensive hand counts, indicates that New Hampshire really was a swing state.

              I could keep going, but this comment is too long already. :)

              •  I don't see how (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HudsonValleyMark

                the exit polls always favor Democrats by those large margins unless they are oversampling Democrats. If it's all "within precinct error" you would expect the exit polls to overly favor the Republicans half the time.

                •  ooh, that's the part of my comment I deleted :) (0+ / 0-)

                  If it were all random sampling error, yes, you'd expect it to cancel out. (It's not that the exit polls always favor Democrats by large margins, but they do seem to be biased in that direction.)

                  The evidence necessarily is circumstantial, but it points to non-response bias: a partisan difference in who is willing to fill out the surveys, or perhaps, to engage with the interviewers in the first place. (Non-response bias can be combined with selection bias; see the * below.) In 2004, the average Within-Precinct Error was greater in precincts where the interviewers were stationed further from the doors, suggesting that the easier it was to completely avoid the interviewers, the worse the problem was. It appears that some interviewers obtained much less representative samples than others -- perhaps partly through their own actions*, probably partly because of how people reacted to them. (For instance, more Republican voters than Democratic voters may have avoided young black interviewers.)

                  * Not to wade too far into the weeds, but in most polling places, interviewers are supposed to obtain a random sample by approaching every nth voter, where n is determined based on the expected number of voters. (At least that's how it worked in 2004 -- I don't know for a fact that Edison still uses that protocol, but it would make sense.) If the interviewers fudge on that sampling interval at all, they can easily bias the sample inadvertently.

                  Of course it's logically possible that some of these discrepancies are due to actual miscounts. But analyses at the precinct level -- like analyses at the state level -- show that the vote counts generally make more sense than the exit poll results.

                  There are other possible explanations for exit poll discrepancies. I think non-response (and/or selection) bias is a pretty good one, even though we don't entirely understand how it works.

          •  your willful ignorance is not my fault (0+ / 0-)

            And I thought you had said that you would stop posting on this issue, which would save us all a lot of trouble.

            Your problem is that if one doesn't assume that the exit polls are highly accurate, you basically have no evidence whatsoever. (I've seen an extrapolation from the number of recall petition signatures, and lots of handwaving.)

            If you get some evidence, then you'll have some evidence. Trying to smear me doesn't really help, and is an embarrassing waste of your rec list talent.

            •  I stopped writing diaries about it. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not going to just avoid history because you're terrified of living in a country where Republicans rig elections from time to time.

              Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

              by Troubadour on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:51:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but you ARE avoiding history (0+ / 0-)

                Unless you have something useful to say about the 2004 exit poll results -- which I sure haven't seen -- you're just blowing smoke here.

                I wonder: did you read the diary? Can you explain to me how the argument in the diary relates to your hypothesis that Republicans "rig elections from time to time"? How many times would that be, according to the diary? Is it possible to engage this issue at that level of seriousness?

                Check yourself: is there a reason why you feel compelled to invent my motivations, instead of arguing the facts? You can always rationalize that anyone who disagrees with you Can't Handle The Truth, but what if your arguments just aren't very good?

                Here's the money quote from your timeline diary:

                Of course, more prosaic explanations come to mind than legions of Democratic-leaning voters turning out to support the man trying to erase their political existence, but let's not indulge in untoward speculation based on nothing more than common sense, history, statistics, voting patterns, and the documented behavior of the Walker administration.  Let us instead just go through the recall election and its precipitating circumstances event by event so we can discern what magical properties brought about this oh-so-plausible outcome.
                Argument from incredulity, swaddled in snark. Not a good way to approach empirical inquiry. I tried to work out what you thought your best arguments were; they were pretty well buried.

                I came up with "Walker did bad things" (repeated); "exit polls exit polls exit polls"; and an inference from the number of petition signatures. "Walker did bad things" doesn't make your case; exit polls have been demonstrated to be unreliable; the petition signature inference just doesn't wash. If you're curious, I can try to explain that last part -- or you can just try out your argument on a bunch of political quants, and see how it goes. Or you can just keep telling yourself that you've already won, even if almost everyone on Daily Kos refuses to admit it.

                •  Look, I get it. Denial is nothing new. (0+ / 0-)

                  But until you sort it out that your terror of admitting reality is not important, there is no purpose to this or any other discussion with you on this subject.  You will reject everything you hear.  You will find excuses.  You will be as obtuse as you need to be to keep your fragile little world intact in your imagination.  I deal with this kind of crap all the time arguing with climate change deniers and religious deniers of evolution.  I'm not interested in arguing it here with you - you're grownup enough that you should either just deal with reality or shut the fuck up about a subject you're incapable of handling.

                  Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

                  by Troubadour on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:53:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Detachment from Reality (0+ / 0-)

                    is really believing that more people didn't vote for Scott Walker, or that John Kerry (and dare I say, Al Gore) actually won.  It was that form of denialism that hyper-polarized our country in the first place.  There was a time, not too long ago, before RED and BLUE, when Reagan could win California, a republican could win NY, and a democract could win southern states.

                    The endless recounts and charges of illegitimacy in Florida in 2000 undermined the American election system and polarized the nation in a way that hasn't occured in my lifetime of nearly 50 years.  It seems to be working out for Dems right now, but just a few years ago, it didn't (Bush would never have been re-elected in a less polarized nation).  And, I remind you, things can change.

                    The fact is that cheating is really pretty rare in today's elections.  That is why the GOP has such a hard time selling their voter fraud case.  When cheating does occur, it's marginal at best.  That is why it takes election results of usually much less than 1% to trigger automatic recounts.  If the above theory is true, why don't we have automatic recounts of every election under 5%?  I'm sure the GOP would be in favor of that.  They lose a lot of close elections too.  

                    •  The depths of your DLC delusions sicken me. (0+ / 0-)
                      Detachment from Reality is really believing that more people didn't vote for Scott Walker, or that John Kerry (and dare I say, Al Gore) actually won.  It was that form of denialism that hyper-polarized our country in the first place.
                      No, Tom Friedman - what hyper-polarized the country was the FACT that George W. Bush stole the election and spent the next eight years ruling as if he were a Saudi king rather than governing as an American president.

                      Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

                      by Troubadour on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:07:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  and I encounter your attitude with 9/11 Truthers (0+ / 0-)

                    The verifiable fact is that the peer-reviewed literature is on my side, not yours. From that vantage, your analogies to "climate change deniers and religious deniers of evolution" are upside down. The consensus view in political science is that Bush really did get more votes than Kerry.

                    You don't have to accept the consensus view (and you certainly don't have to accept the legitimacy of any election outcome a priori), but I don't think you're doing anyone any favors by ignoring its existence, or by making up stories about me. Your "You can't handle the truth!" shtick may appeal to the faithful, but it won't persuade the open-minded. If you act like a Truther, people will draw inferences -- even if you happen to be right. So, stop acting like a Truther.

                    •  Occam's Razor is not on your side here. (0+ / 0-)

                      I indulged your refusal to acknowledge common sense despite how much it reeked of fear, and I credit the obtuseness of your initial reactions with motivating me to write that diary, but now you're simply on your own.  Deny it all you like.  The case is made, the facts are established, and you're talking to your damn self with these denials.

                      Conservatives only want Small Government because it's cheaper to corrupt.

                      by Troubadour on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:15:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you think Kerry won NH by 15 points? (0+ / 0-)

                        Dude, are you sure you want to appeal to "common sense"?

                        Your main line of argument relies on a form of evidence that is known to be unreliable. If you really want to know why you're losing, maybe you should take a good long look at that.

          •  Then every single pre-election poll (0+ / 0-)

            was rigged, because Scott Walker never trailed in any of them.  In fact, the final results pretty much mirrored all of the pre-election data.  The election wasn't rigged.  There were a ton of reasons why he won, but serious cheating wasn't one of them.

            Exit polls are unreliable.  Sometimes people are uncomfortable telling exit pollers who they voted for, and sometimes, they just want to tell pollers what they think they want to hear.  I'm sure there were a lot of voters in WI who voted for Walker who weren't all that proud of it.  It's not easy to admit that you are jealous and resentful of the two-teacher family next door who get their summers off, vacation in Hawaii, drive a Lexus, and plan to retire at 55.

            •  he trailed in a PPP poll back in February (0+ / 0-)

              Yeah, that's a nitpick. :)

              While I'm here....

              Sometimes people are uncomfortable telling exit pollers who they voted for, and sometimes, they just want to tell pollers what they think they want to hear.
              People don't literally tell the pollers anything -- at least not the ones who fill out questionnaires at the polling places.

              Anecdotally, some people lie on the exit polls more or less for fun, but I don't know of any reason to think that has much impact on the results. I think it's mostly a matter of who never fills them out. But AFAIK there isn't enough solid evidence to pound the table about this.

  •  exit polls are worthless (4+ / 0-)

    Come on.  All the energy spent on this nonsense is just wasted.  We can no more point to actual fraud than the GOP can.

    •  depends on your definition (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dracowyrm, Deep Texan

      I daresay there is some evidence of actual fraud -- and a lot of the equipment certainly isn't trustworthy. But I don't know of any evidence of fraud on the scale that this diary alleges is routine.

      •  I disagree with massive widespread fraud (2+ / 0-)

        I think most of the dirty work is done in discouraging or blocking voting, but even that has a hard time rising to this level. When Ohio put its first ever ID requirement into place in 2006, everyone was predicting widespread disenfranchisement. i was an observer in an inner-city Cleveland polling place for the Strickland campaign, and problems were virtually nonexistent. Almost no one showed up without ID, although there was certainly a lot of muttering under the breath about Jim Crow and "My grandfather moved up from Mississippi to get away from this crap."

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:01:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You should look at the elections from 1988-2008 (0+ / 0-)

          and how the 1988-2008 presidential elections recorded votes deviated from the True Vote Model and state and national exit polls:

          True Vote Model

          You should read Richard Charnin's open letters to Nate Silver:

           Letter to Nate Silver

          •  ok, I just read the Open Letter. Can't say I'm (3+ / 0-)

            surprised if Nate never responded to it, given the tone and rhetoric which, fairly or not, make it all too easy to dismiss the whole thing as tinfoily.   Charnin reads here like Dostoyevsky's Underground Man: contemptuous and hostile toward an audience he nevertheless hopes will take him seriously.  

            I would need to see much, much more attention paid to the specific mechanisms of fraud which supposedly result in these regular 5% undercounts.

            We'd also need some explanation for why the democratic party, if it truly has been systematically disadvantaged to this degree for the past 50 years, hasn't sought some kind of means for redress?  through civil courts, criminal courts, publicity, marching in the streets...

            Or has the Democratic party WANTED to lose all those elections?  and that's what has kept them from blowing the lid off this massive conspiracy.

            I guess my position is like Dbug's.  

            •  Wow -- Charnin needs a hobby (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HudsonValleyMark, Deep Texan

              His entire Russian-novel-length screed ignores the utter bullshit nature of exit polls.  People lie, the samples blow ... what else is there?  Yeah -- Kerry won by 10 million votes but somehow, the machines and paper ballots and every other damn system the country uses missed it.  Ten million votes.  

              Wow.

              •  Amen (0+ / 0-)

                "People lie, the samples blow ... what else is there?"

                I'll add that some people resent exit polls, because they think that voting is a secret and private matter.  My wife of 16 years still won't tell me who she votes for, and out of respect, I've stopped asking her.  She is the perfect example of someone who would tell an exit poller something totally unrelated to what she actually did.

        •  yeah, we agree (0+ / 0-)

          I've never been a poll observer in Cleveland, so I can't speak to that, but what you say is consistent with what I've seen. (I cheer up every time you comment in one of these diaries.)

          In the past, Cuyahoga has had some wild voting system problems. From what I've seen, the county board has done a lot to improve things. And cuyahogaelectionaudits.com is a little bit of nerd heaven. ;)

  •  I don't understand what you're saying. (6+ / 0-)

    I looked at your links. They don't make sense.

    I'm good at math. And I'm a good writer (and reader). But I'm baffled. I suspect that you're a math guy who's not very good at explaining your ideas in words. Please explain what you mean by "fraud factor." Give examples. Explain in detail.

    Also, you're a fairly new DKos diarist and you've only written three diaries. You might be a math genius or you might be insane. Or a troll. Or just crazy paranoid about exit polls. I haven't decided yet. I'm not trying to insult you. I just need more information. More explanation in words I can understand, if you please.

    But the angle said to them, "Do not be Alfred. A sailor has been born to you"

    by Dbug on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:46:11 PM PDT

    •  State exit polls are done during an election. (0+ / 0-)

      They are of a large enough sample to give a very accurate snapshot of the expected totals. They may vary from the true results perhaps by a point or two either way. For example if the exit poll is 55-45% it may be that the true vote is 54-56%

      From this data you can determine what the vote should be, then you compare it to the recorded vote. In theory there should not be that much of a difference. Taken on a national level one state may be off by 2 points one way another 2 points the other way. If you are familiar with The Law of Large Numbers you will know what I mean.

      What this shows is that the True Vote is much different than the recorded vote. By far more than the margin of error. One election being way outside the margin of error is certainly possible but the likelihood of all six being off that far is like 1 in infinity.

      The difference from the True vote and the recorded vote is the fraud factor. Does it prove fraud? No, but what other explaination is there that is plausible?

      I hope this explains it perhaps a little better. I understand not everyone will agree with it but I think it is an important topic for disscussion especially in light of the voter suppression efforts

      •  No, no, no. Here is your explanation. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Obama Amabo, Deep Texan

        Unweighted exit polls are biased. If you're a media agency that wants to take an exit poll, you put your people in populated precincts where they will get a lot of respondents. The problem is that you've now selected for urban areas with large precincts, which tend to be Democratic. There are lots of small precincts that are predominately rural and tend to be Republican, but it's not worth it to send an exit poll worker to a precinct that only logs a hundred votes during the election. So you HAVE to weight the results. You can guess using past voting patterns to pre-weight the data and look at turnout by county as it is reported by the state's election office to guess before all the votes are counted, but the gold standard is comparing your data to the actual vote count. Using completely unweighted results is silly. It's like taking a telephone poll of just the urban areas of a state and trying to pass them off as the real result. Even if you poll thousands of people, if your polling methodology is biased, you will get a biased result.

        •  so it DOES seem like a silly exercise to always (3+ / 0-)

          'correct' the bias of the exit polling by simply weighting it in the direction of the actual vote count -- that just ends up with a made-up number that makes the Exit Poll Consortium look better.   But it seems no less silly to claim that the unweighed exit polling represents the True Vote: that means 1) ignoring the clear, documentable biases of the unweighted numbers, and 2) making a claim for consistent, really massive fraud, a claim that needs to be substantiated by something other than the unweighted numbers themselves.  Like documented instances of Dieboldt machine fraud, or the county secretary using her wacky private excel sheet to count votes, or Linden Johnson's registration of dead people in Texas.  As tuffie said above, 10 million votes is an awful lot to make disappear when you have at least one party keenly interested in finding them.

          •  FWIW, that isn't why they weight to the returns (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, College Progressive

            They weight to the vote count not to make their projections look better, but because it ought to make their tables (by age, by religion, etc.) more accurate. It isn't just embarrassing to say that a candidate got 50% of the male vote and 52% of the female vote if s/he got 54% overall; it's rather pointlessly wrong, if the vote count is approximately right.

            Of course weights always are based on assumptions that may not be true; if the pollsters undersampled Walker voters, they don't know what kind(s) of Walker voters they undersampled. One might argue that it would be better to stick with impossible numbers, as a reminder that these are just survey estimates no matter how we weight them. But I think it's reasonable to produce the best possible estimates.

            To be clear, all the exit poll results we see are weighted somehow.

        •  see my comment above (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          It's true that using completely unweighted results is silly -- but the exit pollsters aren't posting completely unweighted results. So I think that is a red herring. The methodological discussion actually is a lot more interesting than the diary, to me at least....

          •  the author above (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HudsonValleyMark

            Has used unweighted exit polls in his analysis (raw numbers), so it's a fair thing to point out.

            •  oh, I stand corrected (0+ / 0-)

              Most often when people refer to "unadjusted" exit poll results, they mean some sort of weighted results that don't include actual vote counts. That would almost certainly be the case if we were talking about the Wisconsin recall election -- as, part of the time, we are.

              But clearly that 61% in 2008 is a raw percentage. (I checked the data file to confirm it.) So, you're absolutely right: that's an indefensible abuse of the data on Charnin's part, since the national exit poll isn't designed to be representative without any weights whatsoever. The best thing about it is its facial ridiculousness.

              (I'm not sure how more plausible the results would be if they were reasonably weighted. Do you know?)

              Sorry about the confusion. I've been slogging through Richard Charnin's shtuff since early 2005, so sometimes I lose track of the context.

  •  a little over the top (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, cph

    There is no fraud factor of 5%. If they have voter ID get off your ass and get the ID you need to vote. If enough people show up to vote for Obama no amount of voter ID or fraud can steal an election.
    I think if Obama is leading by over 2% they can't steal any election. In fact every time we lose we scream it was stolen. I don't believe it. OK they stole the election from Gore but if Obama loses it won't be fraud it will be lack of people showing up!

    •  They didn't steal it from Gore, either (0+ / 0-)

      They could count the votes from 2000 in Florida 100 times and come up with 100 different totals.  Remember those idiots peering up into a light and making "judgement" calls on "hanging chads"?

      Why can't we just accept that the 2000 election was too close to call in FL, and that reality revealed that our election systems are not a Swiss watch?  When it's that close, you are at the mercy of the first hand recount.  And, even then, nobody really knows.

      Believing that every lost election was "rigged" is like those people that think NFL games are fixed.  If you believe that, then don't bother watching the games.  If you think every election is rigged, then move to a different country, maybe one where they don't even have elections to rig.

      •  I partly disagree about Florida (0+ / 0-)
        They could count the votes from 2000 in Florida 100 times and come up with 100 different totals.  Remember those idiots peering up into a light and making "judgement" calls on "hanging chads"?
        First of all, pardon my literal, but I think the people who did their damnedest to interpret voter intent on those punch cards are heroes, not idiots. They deserved a better voting system to work with.

        Second, the question of who would have won in a full recount is somewhat nuanced, but it isn't endlessly subjective. The Florida Ballots Project pretty much resolved it. If only undervotes were considered, Bush would have won by any consistent standard: the election didn't hinge on hanging chads. (Yes, 100 counts may well have yielded 100 different totals, but not wildly different.) However, if both undervotes and overvotes were considered under a voter intent standard, Gore would have won, because substantially more people voted for him twice on optical scan ballots -- once as a write-in -- than voted for Bush twice.

        Presumably no one knew this at the time. The Bush campaign, naturally, wanted to quit while it was ahead, and SCOTUS made that happen. In a parallel universe not so far from this one, the courts ordered a full hand recount, and Gore won it, much as Franken won in 2006.

        That said, it's not as if the Bush campaign pushed the "steal election" button; to a large extent, apparently it got lucky. In another parallel universe, the Broward County ballots were better designed, and Gore won by thousands of votes, with or without a recount. So, I agree that these issues aren't so cut-and-dried.

        (We could talk about the registration purges....)

  •  Look, the gop plan has always been keep it within (0+ / 0-)

    the MOE and steal it. They are looking closely at OH, PA and FL.

    With a lazy media and a distracted public, I dont expect much pushback on voter disenfranchisement, which is a shame because this is one issue that makes my blood boil.

    Id like to believe I would fight against voting limits if my own party were to engage in it. Its just wrong. The media cant even have an honest debate about it.

    All that campaign ad money is keeping the networks in horse race mode.

    •  If by "steal it" you mean (0+ / 0-)

      voter suppression, then that I can believe is one of their strategies.  But, that is a different issue than rigging actual vote counts.  In a cold and callous way, you can make the argument that discouraging some people from voting is just the opposite strategic tactic from targeted GOTV efforts.

      Afterall, Dem GOTV isn't spending much time in rural PA or Ohio these days.  Nobody much cares if those folks have help getting to the polls.

  •  This is set for a court hearing in Arizona (0+ / 0-)

    on the 13th. It is interesting.

    Pima County Election Fraud

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site