Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps I should have been more explicit -- I was applying Occum's Razor [wikipedia.org], which is a rule of thumb that (to paraphrase) states that the explanation or theory which requires the least amount of unsupported assumptions (a subjective determination, I agree) is most likely to be correct.

You are misapplying the rule here since there are multiple theories all of which require unsupported assumptions. The correct solution is not to exclude any theory that don't require a lot of unsupported assumptions. Otherwise, you are making unwarranted assumptions by selectively excluding theories.

So yes, the numbers can be explained by improper sampling. And there seems to be some sampling problems precisely with the two elections you mention.

...exit polling suggests the last two elections were rigged.

As someone who works in a survey organization as a statistician, please let me explain that there is no guarantee any poll/survey comes up with the true answer. Perhaps people that voted for a candidate didn't want to admit it for some reason. Perhaps people just said anything to get away from the pollsters. Or perhaps the sampling was messed up. Or perhaps the pollsters had their own agenda.

• Could the numbers be explained by election fraud? Yes. Is there a reasonably convincing rationale that explains why this might have happened? With no further information, yes of course -- there are many people who would have been strongly motivated to try to rig the system in a close election.
• Could the numbers be explained by a situation where people voting for a particular candidate were less likely to admit it to pollsters than people who voted for another candidate? Yes. Is there a reasonably convincing rationale that explains why this might have happened? Maybe, but if so it's not as straightforward as the explanation for election fraud. If you have a convincing rationale, please share it or provide a link.
• Could the numbers be explained by people just giving random responses to get away from the pollsters? No, my understanding is that it could not explain the numbers with without an extremely unlikely coincidence -- the discrepancies are too large to be adequately explained by this. The top Google result for a search on "exit polls statistical significance" sends me to this document (pdf link) about the 2004 polls. Assuming the math in that paper is even close to correct, it would be extremely unlikely that random responses could explain what happened.
• Could the numbers be explained by improper sampling? Yes. Is there a reasonably convincing rationale that explains why this might have happened? Maybe, I don't know. If you have one, please share it or provide a link.
• Could the numbers be explained by pollster plotting? Yes. Is there a reasonably convincing rationale that explains why this might have happened? Maybe, but I really doubt it. This would wind up being a pretty significant conspiracy theory. If you think you have one anyway, please share it or provide a link.

OSCE found the US elections to have only some minor problems, ...

They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said.

• Many states (such as NH and Ohio) still count votes using machines with secret sauce source code that have been proved to be trivial to crack, making it easy for a single person to alter the outcome of an entire election.
• The media via a private company have conspired to keep the raw exit poll data secret (see first link above) so it can't be used to check the official results.
• A recount was ordered in one of the states that could possibly change the overall winner of the entire election but that recount was rigged and the ballots were destroyed so we have no idea of who actually won.

Part of the reason the issue [exit poll discrepancies] went away for the media and simultaneously raised suspicion on the web is secrecy and confusion about the data and what exactly is being characterized as the exit poll. If you go to the CNN website or any other website on which 2004 exit poll data are available, you'll see numbers very different from those released on election day. This is because the survey results originally collected and presented to subscribers were subsequently "corrected" to conform to official tallies.

Part of the reason the issue [exit poll discrepancies] went away for the media and simultaneously raised suspicion on the web is secrecy and confusion about the data and what exactly is being characterized as the exit poll. If you go to the CNN website or any other website on which 2004 exit poll data are available, you'll see numbers very different from those released on election day. This is because the survey results originally collected and presented to subscribers were subsequently corrected to conform to official tallies.

Part of the reason the issue [exit poll discrepancies] went away for the media and simultaneously raised suspicion on the web is secrecy and confusion about the data and what exactly is being characterized as the exit poll. If you go to the CNN website or any other website on which 2004 exit poll data are available, you'll see numbers very different from those released on election day. This is because the survey results originally collected and presented to subscribers were subsequently corrected to conform to official tallies.

Jonathan Simon, an attorney and co-founder of the group Election Defense Alliance, says that the vote discrepancies between machine and hand counts in New Hampshire's Democratic primary are troubling, and defy easy explanation.

"The trouble is, whenever you have a surprise result in an election, and it runs counter to the polls, the media always say the problem is the polling, not the counting." But he adds, "The thing is, these things always work in one direction-in favor of the more conservative candidate, and that defies the law of quantum mechanics."

USA has always demanded on a way to cheat in their election systems. Fraud-proof systems just won't do for the americans.
Printing these on demand will simply let any insider print and fill out as many as are needed to get the right candidate to win.

2004 election results and exit polls prove a clear fraud took place. The US Secret Service, the media nor the FBI are doing nothing, not a single arrest to day on the matter. And CIA is still flying torture jets filled with cocaine. The criminals are running the show and americans are busy playing ostritch.

So, where's the graphs showing the election fraud going on in the U.S.?

You might look at some of Steven F. Freeman's papers, like this one: Polling Bias or Corrupted Count? (pdf file).

Did Homeland Security censor them, perhaps?

Nope. Just the good old US corporate media. "Nothing to see here, just a bunch of conspiracy nuts on the internet"

So, where's the graphs showing the election fraud going on in the U.S.?

You might look at some of Steven F. Freeman's papers, like this one: Polling Bias or Corrupted Count? (pdf file).

Did Homeland Security censor them, perhaps?

Nope. Just the good old US corporate media. "Nothing to see here, just a bunch of conspiracy nuts on the internet"

Okay, so like I said, you don't have any evidence? You can base your beliefs on whatever you want, but me, I'm a man of science, I like evidence.

The entire structure of a democracy is necessarily based on scepticism - accordingly, the population needs to apply critical thinking when pondering the nature of their electoral process. I agree that paranoia doesn't help, but not reacting with alarm on unprecedented anomalies is careless, I think. Taken from a research report by the University of Pennsylvania:

Assuming independent state polls with no systematic bias, the odds against any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together are more than 5,000:1 (five times more improbable than ten straight heads from a fair coin). The odds against all three occurring together are 662,000-to- one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.

Since you already pointed out that "exit polls are not representative and can be rather inaccurate", then please provide the evidence that scientifically invalidates the above findings. I don't mind counter-proofs.

But then again, when vote counting is handed over to a couple of private corporations, well... I can't really find words to describe the absurdity in that. To me, common sense would suffice - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp why giving control of vote counting to private corporations can only result in "widespread endemic election fraud", but if you need direct and undeniable evidence supporting that notion, then I guess only time will tell.

No kidding. All you have to do is scan of his list of publications to understand that Joel Bleifuss is not exactly an impartial observer - more like someone who has a vendetta:

"The Importance of Not Getting Over It"
"Lies Judith Miller Told Us"
"DeLay May Be Gone, But His Legacy Isn't"
"No Child Left Unrecruited"
"Bush Apologistas"
"Stand Up For Peace"
"Christian Restorationists"
"The New New Orleans"

From his article "The New New Orleans"

Back on message, Bush said, "This poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity."

That's undisputedly true, but in a strange permutation of racial politics, the color of the skin of those displaced by Katrina has been used to deflect attention away from a system of class oppression that is an equal opportunity disabler.

While race certainly has its role, American poverty is most firmly rooted in a class system--a system maintained by an economy that allocates the wealth of society to those who already have the most. One of the ways that wealth is created is to ensure that unskilled workers are not paid a living wage.


Let's take a look at Steve Freeman - he is the academic of the two. His web page is located here. He is a professor of organization, strategy, and entrepreneurship. PhD in Organization Studies from MIT. His list of papers and research are certainly impressive in the field of business organization. OK, I might want him if I were starting up a business, but certainly not as a pollster - he lacks the experience.

The real clincher though is from the FAQ:

Have you been able to obtain the "pure" data from the polling consortium? Data has been made available, but not the data that could be used to verify the validity of the election

Has evidence come to light since the publication of these pieces which would explain this exit poll discrepancy? No such evidence has come to light. All indications are that if the primary exit poll data were made available, it would conclusively show count corruption and identify where count corruption occurred. Unless there is some great public pressure or successful legal action, none of this primary exit poll data will be released.

Was the count accurate? There is little reason to have any confidence in the official count, and many reasons to question it.


He's kidding right? They don't have the data that would verify the validity of the election????????? So wouldn't this be the same data that would invalidate the election? The FAQ continues ....


Have your papers been peer reviewed? Yes. There is no formal mechanism for papers like this (nor is there any good forum in which to publish them), but when I leave a "t" uncrossed in these papers, people write to the dean and demand my dismissal (actually, they do that anyway). The conclusions of the initial paper, in fact, has been accepted, and the "debate" has moved on.

I guess refereed journals such as "The Journal of Politics", "Journal of the American Statistical Association", "Political Analysis", "American Journal of Political Science" are not good forums to publish their results in. Translation: We couldn't find a reputable journal who would publish our results in so we'll release a book. I am also glad that although they couldn't publish their work, the results have been accepted and the "debate" has moved on.

No kidding. All you have to do is scan of his list of publications to understand that Joel Bleifuss is not exactly an impartial observer - more like someone who has a vendetta:

"The Importance of Not Getting Over It"
"Lies Judith Miller Told Us"
"DeLay May Be Gone, But His Legacy Isn't"
"No Child Left Unrecruited"
"Bush Apologistas"
"Stand Up For Peace"
"Christian Restorationists"
"The New New Orleans"

From his article "The New New Orleans"

Back on message, Bush said, "This poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity."

That's undisputedly true, but in a strange permutation of racial politics, the color of the skin of those displaced by Katrina has been used to deflect attention away from a system of class oppression that is an equal opportunity disabler.

While race certainly has its role, American poverty is most firmly rooted in a class system--a system maintained by an economy that allocates the wealth of society to those who already have the most. One of the ways that wealth is created is to ensure that unskilled workers are not paid a living wage.


Let's take a look at Steve Freeman - he is the academic of the two. His web page is located here. He is a professor of organization, strategy, and entrepreneurship. PhD in Organization Studies from MIT. His list of papers and research are certainly impressive in the field of business organization. OK, I might want him if I were starting up a business, but certainly not as a pollster - he lacks the experience.

The real clincher though is from the FAQ:

Have you been able to obtain the "pure" data from the polling consortium? Data has been made available, but not the data that could be used to verify the validity of the election

Has evidence come to light since the publication of these pieces which would explain this exit poll discrepancy? No such evidence has come to light. All indications are that if the primary exit poll data were made available, it would conclusively show count corruption and identify where count corruption occurred. Unless there is some great public pressure or successful legal action, none of this primary exit poll data will be released.

Was the count accurate? There is little reason to have any confidence in the official count, and many reasons to question it.


He's kidding right? They don't have the data that would verify the validity of the election????????? So wouldn't this be the same data that would invalidate the election? The FAQ continues ....


Have your papers been peer reviewed? Yes. There is no formal mechanism for papers like this (nor is there any good forum in which to publish them), but when I leave a "t" uncrossed in these papers, people write to the dean and demand my dismissal (actually, they do that anyway). The conclusions of the initial paper, in fact, has been accepted, and the "debate" has moved on.

I guess refereed journals such as "The Journal of Politics", "Journal of the American Statistical Association", "Political Analysis", "American Journal of Political Science" are not good forums to publish their results in. Translation: We couldn't find a reputable journal who would publish our results in so we'll release a book. I am also glad that although they couldn't publish their work, the results have been accepted and the "debate" has moved on.

No kidding. All you have to do is scan of his list of publications to understand that Joel Bleifuss is not exactly an impartial observer - more like someone who has a vendetta:

"The Importance of Not Getting Over It"
"Lies Judith Miller Told Us"
"DeLay May Be Gone, But His Legacy Isn't"
"No Child Left Unrecruited"
"Bush Apologistas"
"Stand Up For Peace"
"Christian Restorationists"
"The New New Orleans"

From his article "The New New Orleans"

Back on message, Bush said, "This poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity."

That's undisputedly true, but in a strange permutation of racial politics, the color of the skin of those displaced by Katrina has been used to deflect attention away from a system of class oppression that is an equal opportunity disabler.

While race certainly has its role, American poverty is most firmly rooted in a class system--a system maintained by an economy that allocates the wealth of society to those who already have the most. One of the ways that wealth is created is to ensure that unskilled workers are not paid a living wage.


Let's take a look at Steve Freeman - he is the academic of the two. His web page is located here. He is a professor of organization, strategy, and entrepreneurship. PhD in Organization Studies from MIT. His list of papers and research are certainly impressive in the field of business organization. OK, I might want him if I were starting up a business, but certainly not as a pollster - he lacks the experience.

The real clincher though is from the FAQ:

Have you been able to obtain the "pure" data from the polling consortium? Data has been made available, but not the data that could be used to verify the validity of the election

Has evidence come to light since the publication of these pieces which would explain this exit poll discrepancy? No such evidence has come to light. All indications are that if the primary exit poll data were made available, it would conclusively show count corruption and identify where count corruption occurred. Unless there is some great public pressure or successful legal action, none of this primary exit poll data will be released.

Was the count accurate? There is little reason to have any confidence in the official count, and many reasons to question it.


He's kidding right? They don't have the data that would verify the validity of the election????????? So wouldn't this be the same data that would invalidate the election? The FAQ continues ....


Have your papers been peer reviewed? Yes. There is no formal mechanism for papers like this (nor is there any good forum in which to publish them), but when I leave a "t" uncrossed in these papers, people write to the dean and demand my dismissal (actually, they do that anyway). The conclusions of the initial paper, in fact, has been accepted, and the "debate" has moved on.

I guess refereed journals such as "The Journal of Politics", "Journal of the American Statistical Association", "Political Analysis", "American Journal of Political Science" are not good forums to publish their results in. Translation: We couldn't find a reputable journal who would publish our results in so we'll release a book. I am also glad that although they couldn't publish their work, the results have been accepted and the "debate" has moved on.

We have every reason to believe the polls are accurate -- except that they do not match the official results. The probability of statistical error is much less than that of you dying this year in a flood, than that of you dying this year in an earthquake - if you live in California - or tornado - if you live in the Midwest. And less than the probability of President Bush being struck by lightning.

It is so improbable as to be miraculous, that the polls could so uniformly be in error, and all the error towards the Kerry side. When the probabilities suggest a miracle, it's common sense to look for another explanation. There are two, really: 1) The poll methodology was wrong. Very unlikely, it's down to a science and has in the past been much, much more accurate. We have no reason to believe that it was inaccurate this time, except that it doesn't match the final count. 2) Widespread fraud. We already have evidence of some, and very vulnerable Diebold electronic voting systems in place in the disputed states.

Here's the link proving it...

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPol l.pdf

Site...

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

link to pdf of study...

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPol l.pdf

Site...

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

link to pdf of study...

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPol l.pdf