TruthIsAll
07-12-2009, 08:34 AM
Four Exit Poll Naysayer Myths: rBr, Non-response, False Recall and Swing vs Red-shift
TruthIsAll
Let's review the primary arguments promoted by the naysayers in their relentless
attempt since 2004 to cast doubt on the accuracy of state and national exit polls:
reluctant Bush responder (rbr), Non-response, False Recall and Swing vs. Red-shift.
-Reluctant Bush responder (rBr)
The pollsters needed to explain the 7% exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote.
Kerry led by 3-4%. They quickly declared that it was due to the reluctance of Bush
voters to be interviewed; the response ratio was 56% Kerry to 50% Bush. Why the
reluctance on the part of Bush voters to be interviewed? They were either "shy",
"embarrassed", "too busy" or there was some other reason. On the other hand,
Gore voters were "exuberant".
But the most simple explanation (Occam's Razor applies here) for the 56/50 ratio
was that there were 6% more Kerry voters than Bush voters. In fact, rBr was
debunked by the pollsters themselves in the Final 2004 National Exit Poll;
the 43/37% returning Bush/voter mix indicated that 52.6 million Bush voters
returned to vote in 2004. But Bush only had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000.
Approximately 2.5 million died. If 46 of the 48 million still living returned to
vote, there had to be 6.5 million PHANTOM Bush voters!
So the exit pollsters and the National Exit Pool (the media consortium which paid
them) were left with a classic Hobson's choice: continue to promote rBr or come
up with an explanation for the impossible 43% (52.6 million) returning Bush voters.
They chose the latter: it was due to False Recall.
-Exit Poll Non-response
This was a corollary to rBR: Since there was just a 53% exit poll response rate;
the other 47% were mostly reluctant Bush voters. But a linear regression graph
refuted that theory; the trend line showed a decline in exit poll response going
from strong Bush to strong Kerry states.
So they had to come up with a Hail Mary pass - a miraculous misconception.
-False Recall
Returning Gore voters forgot or lied and said they voted for Bush in 2000.
This was predicated on an analysis of an NES survey of 600 voters who were asked who
they voted for years after the election. Besides the fact that Bush was unpopular
and Alzheimer's is not a purely Democratic disease, there was another problem with
"false recall": the RECORDED VOTE was the baseline for the survey comparison - not
VOTES CAST (i.e. uncounted votes were not included). In fact, the True Vote shares
based on the allocation of uncounted votes cast fell within the 4% NES margin of
error in 8 of the 11 elections since 1968.
Let's round out the Big Four with a ruse designed to further fog the debate.
Whoever thought this one up deserves kudos for obfuscation. But, like all the other
canards it was proved to be false by True Vote analysis and Mathematical Logic.
-Swing vs. Red-shift
There was virtually zero correlation between swing (change in recorded vote from
2000 to 2004) and red-shift (exit poll discrepancy), therefore the exit polls
were not indicators of fraud.
There are two major problems with "Swing vs. Red-shift":
1) The premise is LOGICALLY FALSE. There does not HAVE to be a direct correlation
between swing and red-shift to prove election fraud. In fact, there are an
INFINITE number of state swing vs. red shift vote share combinations in which
fraud could occur. Kathy Dopp (U.S. Count Votes) provided a mathematical logic proof.
2) Just as in False Recall, the naysayers fell into the same circular logic trap:
they relied on a fraudulent RECORDED vote in their argument and disregarded the
TRUE VOTE (total votes cast). Based on bogus RECORDED Swing and Red-Shift, there
was a near-zero -0.05 correlation coefficient. The naysayers failed to consider that
correlation is not a NECESSARY condition for fraud.
But "Swing vs. Red-shift" CAN be an INDICATOR of fraud - IF it is based on
TRUE VOTE SWING (i.e. on total votes CAST) or True Red-shift. There was a -0.34
correlation between TRUE VOTE Swing and TRUE Red-shift. There was a stronger
-0.56 correlation between RECORDED Swing and TRUE Red-shift. Finally, perhaps the best measure was the -0.44 TRUE VOTE SWING vs. RECORDED red-shift. The naysayers had
it half-right. But in stating that Swing vs. Red-shift "kills the fraud argument",
they kill their own credibility.
BASED ON THE NAYSAYER SWING VS. RED-SHIFT HYPOTHESIS, THE STRONG negative CORRELATION
WOULD INDICATE FRAUD. IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY WOULD BE HOISTED
ON THEIR OWN PETARD.
So, are the naysayers and the media simply uninformed? Or do they intentionally
MISINFORM in order to keep Joe Q. Public unaware of ENDEMIC ELECTION FRAUD?
Stay tuned.
Correlation Summary:
Recorded Swing vs. Recorded Red-shift: -0.05
True Swing vs. True Red shift: -0.34
Recorded Swing vs. True Red-shift: -0.56
True Swing vs. Recorded Red-shift: -0.44
Note:
In the following table, Swing does not include the effects of the third-party vote.
Total True Vote Swing is actually lower than 3.1% since third party voters would
have added to Gore's True share. Nader et al had 3.8% in 2000 and 1.0% in 2004.
Kerry had nearly 70% of returning third-party voters.
True Vote Recorded vote
2000 2004 2004 2004 Red 2000 2004 2004 Red
Gore Kerry Swing Exit Shift Gore Kerry Swing Shift
Total 50.3% 53.4% 3.1% 52.0% -1.4% 48.4% 48.3% -0.1% 3.7%
AL 45.3% 46.8% 1.5% 41.8% -5.0% 41.6% 36.8% -4.7% 5.0%
AK 21.1% 38.1% 17.0% 40.2% 2.1% 27.7% 35.5% 7.9% 4.7%
AZ 45.7% 51.5% 5.8% 44.5% -6.9% 44.7% 44.4% -0.3% 0.2%
AR 52.6% 49.6% -2.9% 45.2% -4.4% 45.9% 44.5% -1.3% 0.7%
CA 53.0% 59.0% 6.1% 60.1% 1.1% 53.4% 54.3% 0.9% 5.8%
CO 41.7% 52.0% 10.2% 50.1% -1.9% 42.4% 47.0% 4.6% 3.1%
CT 53.6% 63.3% 9.8% 62.3% -1.0% 55.9% 54.3% -1.6% 8.0%
DE 56.6% 59.3% 2.8% 61.3% 2.0% 55.0% 53.3% -1.6% 8.0%
DC 84.7% 89.8% 5.2% 90.6% 0.7% 85.2% 89.2% 4.0% 1.4%
FL 50.4% 52.4% 2.0% 51.0% -1.4% 48.8% 47.1% -1.7% 3.9%
GA 47.2% 48.2% 1.0% 42.0% -6.2% 43.0% 41.4% -1.6% 0.7%
HI 54.8% 64.3% 9.5% 58.1% -6.2% 55.8% 54.0% -1.8% 4.1%
ID 29.7% 33.2% 3.5% 32.3% -0.9% 27.6% 30.3% 2.6% 2.0%
IL 56.8% 59.5% 2.7% 56.6% -3.0% 54.6% 54.8% 0.2% 1.8%
IN 44.6% 47.1% 2.5% 40.4% -6.8% 41.0% 39.3% -1.7% 1.1%
IA 50.8% 53.3% 2.6% 50.7% -2.6% 48.5% 49.2% 0.7% 1.5%
KS 35.2% 42.6% 7.3% 37.2% -5.4% 37.2% 36.6% -0.6% 0.6%
KY 46.8% 45.9% -0.9% 39.9% -6.0% 41.4% 39.7% -1.7% 0.2%
LA 50.7% 50.0% -0.7% 43.5% -6.5% 44.9% 42.2% -2.7% 1.3%
ME 51.3% 56.4% 5.0% 55.6% -0.8% 49.1% 53.6% 4.5% 2.0%
MD 57.1% 61.1% 3.9% 59.6% -1.5% 56.6% 55.9% -0.7% 3.7%
MA 58.7% 67.3% 8.6% 65.8% -1.6% 59.8% 61.9% 2.1% 3.9%
MI 53.8% 55.2% 1.4% 54.4% -0.8% 51.3% 51.2% 0.0% 3.2%
MN 49.2% 55.7% 6.6% 55.7% 0.0% 47.9% 51.1% 3.2% 4.6%
MS 46.6% 47.8% 1.2% 49.0% 1.2% 40.7% 39.8% -1.0% 9.3%
MO 50.8% 52.7% 1.8% 49.0% -3.7% 47.1% 46.1% -1.0% 2.9%
MT 35.6% 40.7% 5.1% 37.3% -3.4% 33.4% 38.6% 5.2% -1.3%
NE 33.8% 37.5% 3.7% 37.0% -0.5% 33.3% 32.7% -0.6% 4.4%
NV 48.3% 52.5% 4.2% 52.8% 0.3% 46.0% 47.9% 1.9% 5.0%
NH 48.1% 53.5% 5.4% 57.2% 3.7% 46.8% 50.2% 3.4% 7.0%
NJ 56.4% 60.1% 3.7% 57.5% -2.6% 56.1% 52.9% -3.2% 4.6%
NM 49.6% 54.7% 5.0% 53.0% -1.6% 47.9% 49.0% 1.1% 4.0%
NY 61.0% 64.1% 3.1% 64.5% 0.4% 60.2% 58.4% -1.8% 6.1%
NC 47.9% 47.5% -0.3% 49.5% 2.0% 43.2% 43.6% 0.4% 6.0%
ND 37.0% 40.5% 3.4% 34.6% -5.8% 33.1% 35.5% 2.4% -0.9%
OH 48.5% 52.4% 3.9% 54.0% 1.6% 46.5% 48.7% 2.2% 5.3%
OK 44.4% 44.4% 0.0% 33.8% -10.6% 38.4% 34.4% -4.0% -0.6%
OR 46.6% 54.6% 8.0% 52.2% -2.4% 47.0% 51.3% 4.4% 0.9%
PA 52.3% 55.3% 3.0% 55.1% -0.2% 50.6% 50.9% 0.3% 4.2%
RI 61.1% 66.6% 5.5% 62.1% -4.5% 61.0% 59.4% -1.6% 2.7%
SC 47.1% 48.9% 1.7% 45.8% -3.1% 40.9% 40.9% 0.0% 4.9%
SD 42.4% 41.3% -1.1% 35.9% -5.4% 37.6% 38.4% 0.9% -2.6%
TN 50.3% 49.8% -0.5% 43.2% -6.6% 47.3% 42.5% -4.8% 0.7%
TX 43.1% 44.2% 1.1% 42.0% -2.1% 38.0% 38.2% 0.2% 3.8%
UT 28.0% 32.8% 4.8% 28.1% -4.7% 26.3% 26.0% -0.3% 2.2%
VT 50.3% 59.8% 9.5% 66.5% 6.7% 50.6% 58.9% 8.3% 7.6%
VA 47.0% 50.0% 3.0% 49.8% -0.2% 44.4% 45.5% 1.0% 4.4%
WA 50.9% 56.0% 5.1% 56.8% 0.9% 50.1% 52.8% 2.7% 4.0%
WV 52.8% 50.9% -2.0% 40.2% -10.6% 45.6% 43.2% -2.4% -3.0%
WI 49.8% 53.5% 3.7% 52.1% -1.4% 47.8% 49.7% 1.9% 2.4%
WY 33.9% 31.5% -2.4% 32.6% 1.1% 27.7% 29.1% 1.4% 3.5%
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TrueVoteElectionCalculator614test_image001.gif
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/StateVotevsExitPollCompletionRate1_27680_image001.png
TruthIsAll
Let's review the primary arguments promoted by the naysayers in their relentless
attempt since 2004 to cast doubt on the accuracy of state and national exit polls:
reluctant Bush responder (rbr), Non-response, False Recall and Swing vs. Red-shift.
-Reluctant Bush responder (rBr)
The pollsters needed to explain the 7% exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote.
Kerry led by 3-4%. They quickly declared that it was due to the reluctance of Bush
voters to be interviewed; the response ratio was 56% Kerry to 50% Bush. Why the
reluctance on the part of Bush voters to be interviewed? They were either "shy",
"embarrassed", "too busy" or there was some other reason. On the other hand,
Gore voters were "exuberant".
But the most simple explanation (Occam's Razor applies here) for the 56/50 ratio
was that there were 6% more Kerry voters than Bush voters. In fact, rBr was
debunked by the pollsters themselves in the Final 2004 National Exit Poll;
the 43/37% returning Bush/voter mix indicated that 52.6 million Bush voters
returned to vote in 2004. But Bush only had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000.
Approximately 2.5 million died. If 46 of the 48 million still living returned to
vote, there had to be 6.5 million PHANTOM Bush voters!
So the exit pollsters and the National Exit Pool (the media consortium which paid
them) were left with a classic Hobson's choice: continue to promote rBr or come
up with an explanation for the impossible 43% (52.6 million) returning Bush voters.
They chose the latter: it was due to False Recall.
-Exit Poll Non-response
This was a corollary to rBR: Since there was just a 53% exit poll response rate;
the other 47% were mostly reluctant Bush voters. But a linear regression graph
refuted that theory; the trend line showed a decline in exit poll response going
from strong Bush to strong Kerry states.
So they had to come up with a Hail Mary pass - a miraculous misconception.
-False Recall
Returning Gore voters forgot or lied and said they voted for Bush in 2000.
This was predicated on an analysis of an NES survey of 600 voters who were asked who
they voted for years after the election. Besides the fact that Bush was unpopular
and Alzheimer's is not a purely Democratic disease, there was another problem with
"false recall": the RECORDED VOTE was the baseline for the survey comparison - not
VOTES CAST (i.e. uncounted votes were not included). In fact, the True Vote shares
based on the allocation of uncounted votes cast fell within the 4% NES margin of
error in 8 of the 11 elections since 1968.
Let's round out the Big Four with a ruse designed to further fog the debate.
Whoever thought this one up deserves kudos for obfuscation. But, like all the other
canards it was proved to be false by True Vote analysis and Mathematical Logic.
-Swing vs. Red-shift
There was virtually zero correlation between swing (change in recorded vote from
2000 to 2004) and red-shift (exit poll discrepancy), therefore the exit polls
were not indicators of fraud.
There are two major problems with "Swing vs. Red-shift":
1) The premise is LOGICALLY FALSE. There does not HAVE to be a direct correlation
between swing and red-shift to prove election fraud. In fact, there are an
INFINITE number of state swing vs. red shift vote share combinations in which
fraud could occur. Kathy Dopp (U.S. Count Votes) provided a mathematical logic proof.
2) Just as in False Recall, the naysayers fell into the same circular logic trap:
they relied on a fraudulent RECORDED vote in their argument and disregarded the
TRUE VOTE (total votes cast). Based on bogus RECORDED Swing and Red-Shift, there
was a near-zero -0.05 correlation coefficient. The naysayers failed to consider that
correlation is not a NECESSARY condition for fraud.
But "Swing vs. Red-shift" CAN be an INDICATOR of fraud - IF it is based on
TRUE VOTE SWING (i.e. on total votes CAST) or True Red-shift. There was a -0.34
correlation between TRUE VOTE Swing and TRUE Red-shift. There was a stronger
-0.56 correlation between RECORDED Swing and TRUE Red-shift. Finally, perhaps the best measure was the -0.44 TRUE VOTE SWING vs. RECORDED red-shift. The naysayers had
it half-right. But in stating that Swing vs. Red-shift "kills the fraud argument",
they kill their own credibility.
BASED ON THE NAYSAYER SWING VS. RED-SHIFT HYPOTHESIS, THE STRONG negative CORRELATION
WOULD INDICATE FRAUD. IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY WOULD BE HOISTED
ON THEIR OWN PETARD.
So, are the naysayers and the media simply uninformed? Or do they intentionally
MISINFORM in order to keep Joe Q. Public unaware of ENDEMIC ELECTION FRAUD?
Stay tuned.
Correlation Summary:
Recorded Swing vs. Recorded Red-shift: -0.05
True Swing vs. True Red shift: -0.34
Recorded Swing vs. True Red-shift: -0.56
True Swing vs. Recorded Red-shift: -0.44
Note:
In the following table, Swing does not include the effects of the third-party vote.
Total True Vote Swing is actually lower than 3.1% since third party voters would
have added to Gore's True share. Nader et al had 3.8% in 2000 and 1.0% in 2004.
Kerry had nearly 70% of returning third-party voters.
True Vote Recorded vote
2000 2004 2004 2004 Red 2000 2004 2004 Red
Gore Kerry Swing Exit Shift Gore Kerry Swing Shift
Total 50.3% 53.4% 3.1% 52.0% -1.4% 48.4% 48.3% -0.1% 3.7%
AL 45.3% 46.8% 1.5% 41.8% -5.0% 41.6% 36.8% -4.7% 5.0%
AK 21.1% 38.1% 17.0% 40.2% 2.1% 27.7% 35.5% 7.9% 4.7%
AZ 45.7% 51.5% 5.8% 44.5% -6.9% 44.7% 44.4% -0.3% 0.2%
AR 52.6% 49.6% -2.9% 45.2% -4.4% 45.9% 44.5% -1.3% 0.7%
CA 53.0% 59.0% 6.1% 60.1% 1.1% 53.4% 54.3% 0.9% 5.8%
CO 41.7% 52.0% 10.2% 50.1% -1.9% 42.4% 47.0% 4.6% 3.1%
CT 53.6% 63.3% 9.8% 62.3% -1.0% 55.9% 54.3% -1.6% 8.0%
DE 56.6% 59.3% 2.8% 61.3% 2.0% 55.0% 53.3% -1.6% 8.0%
DC 84.7% 89.8% 5.2% 90.6% 0.7% 85.2% 89.2% 4.0% 1.4%
FL 50.4% 52.4% 2.0% 51.0% -1.4% 48.8% 47.1% -1.7% 3.9%
GA 47.2% 48.2% 1.0% 42.0% -6.2% 43.0% 41.4% -1.6% 0.7%
HI 54.8% 64.3% 9.5% 58.1% -6.2% 55.8% 54.0% -1.8% 4.1%
ID 29.7% 33.2% 3.5% 32.3% -0.9% 27.6% 30.3% 2.6% 2.0%
IL 56.8% 59.5% 2.7% 56.6% -3.0% 54.6% 54.8% 0.2% 1.8%
IN 44.6% 47.1% 2.5% 40.4% -6.8% 41.0% 39.3% -1.7% 1.1%
IA 50.8% 53.3% 2.6% 50.7% -2.6% 48.5% 49.2% 0.7% 1.5%
KS 35.2% 42.6% 7.3% 37.2% -5.4% 37.2% 36.6% -0.6% 0.6%
KY 46.8% 45.9% -0.9% 39.9% -6.0% 41.4% 39.7% -1.7% 0.2%
LA 50.7% 50.0% -0.7% 43.5% -6.5% 44.9% 42.2% -2.7% 1.3%
ME 51.3% 56.4% 5.0% 55.6% -0.8% 49.1% 53.6% 4.5% 2.0%
MD 57.1% 61.1% 3.9% 59.6% -1.5% 56.6% 55.9% -0.7% 3.7%
MA 58.7% 67.3% 8.6% 65.8% -1.6% 59.8% 61.9% 2.1% 3.9%
MI 53.8% 55.2% 1.4% 54.4% -0.8% 51.3% 51.2% 0.0% 3.2%
MN 49.2% 55.7% 6.6% 55.7% 0.0% 47.9% 51.1% 3.2% 4.6%
MS 46.6% 47.8% 1.2% 49.0% 1.2% 40.7% 39.8% -1.0% 9.3%
MO 50.8% 52.7% 1.8% 49.0% -3.7% 47.1% 46.1% -1.0% 2.9%
MT 35.6% 40.7% 5.1% 37.3% -3.4% 33.4% 38.6% 5.2% -1.3%
NE 33.8% 37.5% 3.7% 37.0% -0.5% 33.3% 32.7% -0.6% 4.4%
NV 48.3% 52.5% 4.2% 52.8% 0.3% 46.0% 47.9% 1.9% 5.0%
NH 48.1% 53.5% 5.4% 57.2% 3.7% 46.8% 50.2% 3.4% 7.0%
NJ 56.4% 60.1% 3.7% 57.5% -2.6% 56.1% 52.9% -3.2% 4.6%
NM 49.6% 54.7% 5.0% 53.0% -1.6% 47.9% 49.0% 1.1% 4.0%
NY 61.0% 64.1% 3.1% 64.5% 0.4% 60.2% 58.4% -1.8% 6.1%
NC 47.9% 47.5% -0.3% 49.5% 2.0% 43.2% 43.6% 0.4% 6.0%
ND 37.0% 40.5% 3.4% 34.6% -5.8% 33.1% 35.5% 2.4% -0.9%
OH 48.5% 52.4% 3.9% 54.0% 1.6% 46.5% 48.7% 2.2% 5.3%
OK 44.4% 44.4% 0.0% 33.8% -10.6% 38.4% 34.4% -4.0% -0.6%
OR 46.6% 54.6% 8.0% 52.2% -2.4% 47.0% 51.3% 4.4% 0.9%
PA 52.3% 55.3% 3.0% 55.1% -0.2% 50.6% 50.9% 0.3% 4.2%
RI 61.1% 66.6% 5.5% 62.1% -4.5% 61.0% 59.4% -1.6% 2.7%
SC 47.1% 48.9% 1.7% 45.8% -3.1% 40.9% 40.9% 0.0% 4.9%
SD 42.4% 41.3% -1.1% 35.9% -5.4% 37.6% 38.4% 0.9% -2.6%
TN 50.3% 49.8% -0.5% 43.2% -6.6% 47.3% 42.5% -4.8% 0.7%
TX 43.1% 44.2% 1.1% 42.0% -2.1% 38.0% 38.2% 0.2% 3.8%
UT 28.0% 32.8% 4.8% 28.1% -4.7% 26.3% 26.0% -0.3% 2.2%
VT 50.3% 59.8% 9.5% 66.5% 6.7% 50.6% 58.9% 8.3% 7.6%
VA 47.0% 50.0% 3.0% 49.8% -0.2% 44.4% 45.5% 1.0% 4.4%
WA 50.9% 56.0% 5.1% 56.8% 0.9% 50.1% 52.8% 2.7% 4.0%
WV 52.8% 50.9% -2.0% 40.2% -10.6% 45.6% 43.2% -2.4% -3.0%
WI 49.8% 53.5% 3.7% 52.1% -1.4% 47.8% 49.7% 1.9% 2.4%
WY 33.9% 31.5% -2.4% 32.6% 1.1% 27.7% 29.1% 1.4% 3.5%
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TrueVoteElectionCalculator614test_image001.gif
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/StateVotevsExitPollCompletionRate1_27680_image001.png