Slashdot Mirror

http://www.theguardian.com/com...

http://www.nature.com/news/why...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/a...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.mysterypollster.com...

http://www.examiner.com/articl...

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/general...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...

http://nautil.us/blog/why-were...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

http://articles.economictimes....

First few links from the search engine typing in "why are election polls often wrong"...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol...

http://time.com/3558932/pollin...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/...

http://www.kansas.com/news/loc...

Shut up. Just close your stupid mouth. Sit down. And don't speak again until addressed. You're an idiot. It has been officially noticed.

Ballots, while anonymous, are generally public records that can be examined by anybody. For example, here's a link to a letter from the Florida attorney general answering a question about ballots in that state being public record. Here's another one in Ohio. Including ballots as part of public records means that outside individuals or groups are free to verify that ballots were counted correctly. In fact, I think several newspapers did just that in Florida for the 2000 Presidential election. Ruling that petitions are confidential would make them less open than actual votes.

Nah, just that most of my posts are knee-jerk rants. But, it's nice for my posts to be confused with something worth reading every once in a while. ^.^

But, there's no labels on the y-axis. Google seems to have made the trends information purposefully difficult to use. I suppose you could make relative comparisons, but then only if everything you wanted to compare was on the same graph - otherwise, the y-axis might be different.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is a really cool project. I never thought about using Google trends for something like this before, and it sounds like this kind of accuracy beats some exit polls. I'm just really disappointed that Google crippled their trends service, when something this neat could be using it.

This is called an "exit poll" and it's remarkably accurate. Except of course in the last couple of elections in the USA, where the exit polls utterly failed, especially in districts that had new shiny e-voting machines with no paper trail.

No. The exit polls did not agree with the vote count:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/exit_polls_obama_and_mccain_ah.html

Later, the exit poll is changed to agree with the vote count:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_difference_.html

There has been endless debate about this, but a good primer can be found here: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_p olls_what.html

The one and only thing you can possibly deny is that maybe those two points weren't put together to steal the 2004 election -- except that there is that nasty little problem of explaining away the peculiarly large exit-poll discrepancies that correlated with the use of those voting machines.

Except that there is no exit poll discrepancies. The highest discrepancy I've seen for any of the contested states in the 2004 election is a difference of 5% between the exit-poll result and the final result. Well within the margin of error. What's more, the conspiracy nutcases, as always, have chosen to latch on to the exit polls that best match their theory of voter fraud. Selection bias, yada yada. Take Ohio for example; Slate's exit polls actually show a result closer to the end results (2%) than for states with papertrails. (link)

And as for the general accuracy of exit-polls, well, suffice to say it's usually not all that good.. (link)

And thus we come to an oft-repeated legend: Exit polls "exposed" fraud in Ukraine and elsewhere, so why not here? The biggest problem with that story is that the election monitors in those counties did not depend on exit polls to provide evidence of fraud. In Ukraine, at least, the solid evidence came from eye-witnesses, taped phone conversations, and physical evidence of vote tampering. Review the reports of the most authoritative monitor on the elections in Georgia and Ukraine -- the Office of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) --, and you will find plenty of evidence cited but not a single mention of the phrase "exit poll."

There is reason for a sense of embarrassment and it involves one of the most blatant omissions from the Kennedy article: U.S. exit polls have been wrong before. In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. ...
Go back and watch the classic political documentary, The War Room -- or easier, go back and read my post from January 2005 -- and you will see that that leaked exit polls on Election Day 1992 provided as distorted a view as those leaked in 2004. The difference was that the leaked exit polls in 1992 were known mostly to insiders and served to exaggerate the size of Bill Clinton's eventual victory. Clinton won by less than those early exit polls suggested, but he still won the election, so there was little lingering outrage.

The networks' 1992 national exit poll overstated Democrat Bill Clinton's advantage by 2.5 percentage points, about the same as the Kerry skew

The question has always been whether the exit polls provide affirmative evidence that fraud did in fact occur. This involves a very basic concept of statistical inquiry: We assume no effect until one can be proven, or more technically, we assume a "null hypothesis" until we can prove some alternative. The same principle exists in law as the presumption of innocence. We do not assume a crime has been committed and work backwards to try to disprove it. We presume innocence until enough evidence has been established to prove guilt. ...
What I have argued for the last year and a half is that the exit polls have many such weaknesses that have long been in evidence.

At the center of the exit poll debate is a basic concept about polls that deserves a lot more attention: Statistical sampling error -- the random variation that comes from drawing a sample of voters rather than interviewing the whole population -- is just one source of potential error in a survey. There are others including bias from selected respondents who decline to participate (response error), from voters missed altogether (coverage error), from questions that do not accurately measure the attitude of interest (measurement error) or from a failure to choose exiting voters at random using the correct sampling interval. ...
However, I have certainly learned a great deal about exit polls since then, and calling them the "most reliable" of surveys ignores a host of other practical challenges. Exit polls generally sample a larger number of voters than telephone polls, but they do so because the "cluster sample" technique used on exit polls-- which first selects sample precincts and then voters at those precincts -- has more sampling error than comparably sized telephone poll samples. Exit polls also miss the growing number that vote by mail or cast absentee ballots. ...
[Exit poll] reliability can be questionable. One might think that there is no reason why voters in stable democracies should conceal or lie about how they have voted, especially because nobody is under any obligation to answer in an exit poll. But in practice they often do. The majority of exit polls carried out in European countries over the past years have been failures ...
There is reason for a sense of embarrassment and it involves one of the most blatant omissions from the Kennedy article: U.S. exit polls have been wrong before. In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. And while the 2004 discrepancy was the highest ever, they were almost as far off in 1992. More specifically, the "within precinct error" (WPE) reported by Edison-Mitofsky showed differences favoring the Democrat of 2.2 points on the margin in 1988, 5.0 in 1992, 2.2 in 1996, 1.8 in 2000 and 6.5 in 2004

... The majority of exit polls carried out in European countries over the past years have been failures. ...

Of the ten battleground states that the exit poll showed Kerry winning, he ultimately lost four -- states that, you could say, cost him the election. These were Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. But in none of those states was Kerry's lead outside the poll's margin of error. In other words, the poll results showed a race that was too close to call, and it is impossible to use such a poll to prove that fraud occurred.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_t he_exit_p.html

etc.

I really am concerned when people think that there are active and massive (yet always unprovable) campaigns to literally rig and steal elections, and that it's only the GOP at that, and that they'll be even more pronounced in 2008. If all this is true, what happens if a Democratic candidate wins? The Republicans just didn't "cheat enough"? Or people were *so* fed up that even all of Diebold's hidden secrets to sway the numbers just weren't enough to flip it? Why would a Democratic victory be any more sound given how unbelievably insecure and corrupt it is claimed that the voting machines are, and indeed, that the system itself is? The answer is undeniable: it wouldn't be. And that's exactly why we need a trusted process with a paper trail.

I do agree that a paper trail solves a lot of this, if only to go a long way to restoring faith in the system. But I really am legitimately surprised and concerned - and I'm not just saying that - when people actually think wholeheartedly that there are current, ongoing, massive conspiracies, that somehow miraculously can't be firmly uncovered or proven, to steal elections, only the part of ONLY Republicans no less. Especially in an environment where the most secretive government agencies in the country can't even keep their own classified information, that FAR fewer people would necessarily know about, secret. If you care to discuss this further, feel free to IM or email me at any of my listed contact mechanisms.

A slight correction to your post:

"Exit polls were the gold standard of election forcasting...until 1990".

Since that time exit polls have routinely favoured Democrats above actual vote totals. So even when Clinton was winning the numbers never truly reflected actual vote totals.

According to the pollsters themselves it appears methodology and political ideology seem to be the main culprits. In the last election there was admitted problems with the methodology used, sometimes due to lack of training and some times due to the law (minimum distances from polling stations). As distance between the pollster and the actual polling station increases the reliability of the results decreases as it becomes more of a matter of the voter seeking out a pollster which greatly skews the results. For whatever reason, according to the polling companies themselves, Republicans are less likely to volunteer to take part in an exit poll so would logically therefore be even less likely to make an actually effort to seek out an pollster.

Timing also plays a major factor. For example women, who vote predominantly Democrat, tend to vote earlier and therefore make up a larger percentage of exit poll results than their actual numbers would dictate.

The Mystery Pollster does a pretty good job of explaining all the issues, pro and con, of exit polls.

There is reason for a sense of embarrassment and it involves one of the most blatant omissions from the Kennedy article: U.S. exit polls have been wrong before. In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. And while the 2004 discrepancy was the highest ever, they were almost as far off in 1992. More specifically, the "within precinct error" (WPE) reported by Edison-Mitofsky showed differences favoring the Democrat of 2.2 points on the margin in 1988, 5.0 in 1992, 2.2 in 1996, 1.8 in 2000 and 6.5 in 2004 (see p. 34).

> Exit polls have been used the world over to predict election results for
> decades. [link to wikipedia snipped]

With generally good, but less than perfect accuracy. Wikipedia is not the best source of information on a subject this hotly debated.

> So we have a single event where the long-working exit polls (which are
> normally accurate) are suddenly and significantly different from the final
> official tally. This could be written off as a statistical fluke, but the
> Diebold and ES&S machines are already suspected of widespread insecurity
> and/or deliberate tampering, and then when it all hits the media the
> administration announces it won't be conducting exit polls any more?

Tha's somewhat oversimplified, There are -without doubt- problems. The immediate leap to deliberate tampering is not the only explanation, especially in light of historical incompetence of election workers. The reality is that finding, training, and supervising the volunteers who do the work is a large task filled with problems.

Many of the inaccuracies cited in Florida and Ohio in particular are not evidence of election tampering as much as evidence of the fact that election jobs are handed out to party hacks who aren't competent to do any real work.

Many pollsters are changing their methodologies to deal with problems that have been affecting accuracy for some time.

> Why, when they've been used for decades without problem, are exit polls
> suddenly considered dangerous or misleading? Apart from, that is, their
> potential to provide an indication of election-tampering?

The problem is that they can only be used to support a -charge- that the election was botched. They can provide no value in determining the cause of inaccuracies, or determining culpability.

To actually audit the elections, we need an audit trail, not a secondary source of information. I'm not arguing against most of your points. You made some good ones. But you let it fall into simple two-valued logic which I feel weakened the value of your post.

A couple of links people might find useful:

http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_i s_the_sam.html

The one at mystery pollster has some nice links to other sources. I found it very informative.

What changed is that we looked at early exit polls rather than late exit polls. From a less biased (from your point of view) source than myself:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/do nkeyrising/archives/000940.php

Specifically:

Consider this. The unweighted--completely unweighted--data from the last four presidential elections before this year are as follows:

1988: Dukakis, 50.3; Bush, 49.7

1992: Clinton, 46; Bush, 33.2

1996: Clinton, 52.2; Dole, 37.5

2000: Gore, 48.5; Bush, 46.2

President Dukakis? Obviously, the unweighted data have always been highly problematic and--interestingly--have always shown a strong Democratic bias. Now these unweighted data from past years do not, admittedly, correspond to where we were in the weighting process on election night this year when the +3 Kerry poll hit the 'net--those data had presumably already been weighted to some extent to correct for factors 1. and 2.--but it is still food for thought.

And to follow up:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_t he_exit_p.html

Exit polls have been wrong before, because as I stated and as those sites show, there are flaws to the methodology of exit polling. The reason that they eventualy become accurate as the day wears on is because of wieghting and adjusting for trends.

Furthermore, electronic machines are not new in 2004. They were used in 2000, and appeared in a siginificant section (about 7% of the voting populus) in 1996.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and read up a bit on How Exit Polls Work

Read this. It does explain the methodlogy they are supposed to use though obviously they can't force the pollers to actually do it. Are you sure you were watching a real exit poller or just a creative guy who figured out an innovative way to meet "cute girls".

They certainly aren't suppose to gender bias because it would stick out like a sore thumb in the statistics. They are supposed to pick every 10th or 20th voter, and record evenly spaced results throughout the day. When they get a refusal they are supposed to record the basic characteristics of the refuser so it can be accounted for, and pick the next voter.

They really should be substantially more accurate than the pre election polls because they are actually sampling real voters and not trying to guess likely voters. Needless to say you can't do anything if voters just lie though I'd be inclined to think statisticly you would get an equal number of voters lieing that they voted for Bush and Kerry.

"The exit polls were never all that good numerically."

Yea sure, like I'm gonna believe your anonymous coward BS. Do you have something to support your claim? Here is a pretty good write up with all the methodology and downside to them but it says:

"I have always been a fan of exit polls. Despite the occasional controversies, exit polls remain among the most sophisticated and reliable political surveys available. They will offer an unparalleled look at today's voters in a way that would be impossible without quality survey data. Having said that, they are still just random sample surveys, possessing the usual limitations plus some that are unique to exit polling (I also remain dubious about weighting telephone surveys to match them, but that is another story for another day)."

They have a margin of error like most polls but it sure is odd that margin of error was apparently uniformly in Kerry's favor. You would expect the margin of error would randomly favor Bush in some states and Kerry in others.

"I prefer and honest count without the hoopla."

Now I know you are full of B.S. Where did you develop this certainty the vote counts are always honest or accurate.

Like I said exit polls are the only check we have against potential election rigging. If they disagree wildly with the election results I'm not sayin it means the election was rigged but it suggest it is a possibility

There was a lady on Fox tonight is one of their election specialist. I wish I'd caught her name. She was rabid that if your getting really bad exit polls they are probably right and you have a problem. She apparently has massive experience over many elections. For some reason tonight the exit polls were wildly wrong.

What you cite isn't technically an exit poll, as it was done before the polls opened. However, for the benefit of everyone who will encounter leaked exit polls today, please read the following:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_p olls_what.html

The source is well-informed and brings up many good points to consider. Take any exit poll with a grain of salt and be patient for the official tally. You can burn a lot of energy reading the tea leaves.

This undecided breaking in a 2:1 ratio theory comes from this analysis at the Mystery Pollster:

The Incumbent Rule

A good quote from the link:

Voters typically know incumbents well and have strong opinions about their performance. Challengers are less familiar and invariably fall short on straightforward comparisons of experience and (in the presidential arena) command of foreign policy. Some voters find themselves conflicted -- dissatisfied with the incumbent yet also wary of the challenger -- and may carry that uncertainty through the final days of the campaign and sometimes right into the voting booth. Among the perpetually conflicted, the attitudes about the incumbent are usually more predictive of these conflicted voters' final decision than their lingering doubts about the challenger. Thus, in the campaign's last hours, we tend to see "undecided" voters "break" for the challenger.

Statistical analysis of previous elections appears to back up this theory.