Voter Turnout Analysis Proves Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the 2004 Election was Stolen

TruthIsAll

Jan. 12, 2010

The impossible 2004 National Exit Poll returning Bush/Gore 43/37% split of the electorate has been discussed ad nauseam. It required at least 5 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004. A feasible returning voter mix combined with National Exit Poll vote shares proves that Kerry won beyond a reasonable doubt. The mix was calculated over a wide range of estimated turnout of LIVING 2000 voters after applying a 5% mortality rate.

To handle uncertainty in LIVING Gore and Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004, a 92-98% range of turnout assumptions was applied to calculate the True Vote. But since the 98% turnout estimate is solid, the range should be reduced to 97-99%. This would also increase confidence in the resulting True Vote calculation.

Given that LIVING voter turnout had to be less than 100%, we can set an upper limit of 99% turnout. But to maintain an overall 98% AVERAGE turnout, the lower limit must be 97%. Because of this constraint, there are just three plausible Gore/Bush turnout scenarios: 98/98, 99/97 and 97/99. Again, this assumes that 98% is an accurate estimate. Let’s look at confirming evidence that it is.

We need to consider two cases. The first case assumes that all votes cast in 2004 were counted. This is obviously not true. But the National Exit Poll does not consider uncounted votes; it is always forced to match the RECORDED vote. According to the NEP, 20.8m (17%) of 122.3 m voters were new or did not vote in 2000.

The second case assumes Census total votes cast in which uncounted votes are included. We determine that nearly 22.6m (18%) of 125.7m total votes cast in 2004 were first-time, newly registered voters and others that did not vote in 2000 (DNV).

Given the number of new voters, we can calculate returning voters from 2000. It is simply the difference between total votes recorded and new voters (Case 1). In Case 2, it is votes cast less new voters. In both cases, we use a 5% voter mortality rate based on published statistical tables.

Case 1: Recorded vote
Recorded 2000 vote: 105.4m
Recorded 2004 vote: 122.3m
2004 New voters (NEP): 20.8m (17% of 122.3m recorded in 2004)
Returning 2000 voters: 101.5 = 122.3-20.8 (recorded – new)

2000 voter mortality: 5.3m (5% of 105.4 recorded in 2000)
2000 voters living in 2004: 100.1m

But how could there be 101.5m returning 2000 voters when only 100.1m were living in 2004? Of those living approximately 2 million did not return to vote in 2004. So there is a 3.5 million discrepancy (101.5-98). Those damn phantoms!

Since the NEP 17% new voter share is a rounded figure, it lies somewhere between 16.5% and 17.5%.
If it is 16.5%, there were 20.2m new voters (102.1m returning).

If it is 17.5%, there were 21.4m new voters (100.9m returning).
The number of returning voters exceeds those still living by 0.8 million (100.9-100.1).
Therefore the number of new voters must have exceeded 17% of the 2004 electorate.

Case 2: Votes cast (Census)
2000 votes cast: 110.8m
There were 5.4 million net uncounted votes (110.8m cast -105.4 recorded)
2004 votes cast: 125.7m
2000 voter mortality: 5.5m (5% of 110.8m)).
2000 voters alive in 2004: 105.3 million
Obviously, this is the maximum possible number of returning voters.

Therefore, the minimum number new voters: 20.4m = 125.7 – 105.3 (close to the NEP recorded 20.8m)

Calculate returning 2000 voter turnout and new voters:
Best estimate: 98% turnout of living 2000 voters
Returning voters: 103.2 = .98*105.3
New voters: 22.5 = 125.7 – 103.2
New voter share of 2004 electorate: 17.9% = 22.5/125.7

In Case 1, we determined that the new voters exceeded the NEP 17% figure.
In Case 2, assuming 98% turnout the percentage of new voters is 17.9%.

The following analysis uses a feasible returning voter mix based on 2000 votes cast, 5% mortality and 98% average turnout.
A 70% majority of uncounted votes were assumed for Gore (over 50% of uncounted votes are in heavily Democratic minority districts).

The following tables show the number of new voters over a range of returning 2000 voter turnout and uncounted vote assumptions.
Living voter turnout ranges from 97% to 99% of 105.3 million living voters.
Net uncounted votes range from 5.2 to 5.6 million.

Limiting the 2000 returning voter turnout range to 97-99% for both Gore and Bush constrains the number of new voters. Based on these constraints, the number of new voters must be in the interval from 21.3m to 23.8m (17.0%-18.9% of the 2004 electorate).

Compare the impossible 37/43% Gore/ Bush Final NEP returning voter mix of the 2004 electorate to the feasible voter scenarios.

Assuming equal 5% voter mortality, the Final NEP mix is again proven impossible, this time by the 97-99% turnout interval constraint.

Let's calculate the Kerry vote margin for the three returning voter scenarios, assuming a) Kerry has 59% of new voters (as per the NEP). According to the NEP, Kerry had a 64-17% margin (1.7m) of 3.6 million returning 3rd party voters. He had 10% of returning Bush voters and Bush had 8% of returning Gore voters. The net 2% defection to Kerry increased his margin by 0.7 million. Gore voters were highly motivated due to the 2000 stolen election. Democratic registration of new voters far outnumbered the GOP. Bush had a 48% approval rating.

The most likely base case scenario indicates that Kerry won by 10 million votes.





Gore/Bush 2000 Returning NEP
Voter Voter Share of Diff
Turnout 2004 Votes Cast Margin
97/99% 40.1 / 38.8% 7.7%
98/98 40.6 / 38.4 8.2
99/97 41.0 / 38.0 9.0

____________________________________________

Table 1

Base Case
Unadjusted National Exit Poll Vote Shares
Equal 98% Voter Turnout

Cast Cast Recorded Alive 98% National Exit Poll Vote Shares
2000 2000 2000 2004 Turnout Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV - - - - 22.56 17.9% 59 39 2
Gore 49.4% 54.79 51.00 52.05 51.01 51.01 40.6% 91 8 1
Bush 46.7% 51.81 50.46 49.22 48.23 48.23 38.4% 10 90 0
Other 3.8% 4.23 3.96 4.02 3.93 3.93 3.1% 64 17 19

Total 110.83 105.42 105.28 103.18 125.7 Share 53.3% 45.3% 1.4%
Vote 67.07 56.96 1.71

Recorded Share 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%
Vote 122.3 59.0 62.0 1.2
Diff 5.1% -5.4% 0.4%

____________________________________________

Table 2
Final National Exit Poll Vote Shares
Kerry winning margin is in the range 4.3-6.0 million.

Worst-case scenario
2000 Voter turnout in 2004: Gore 97%, Bush 99%
Kerry wins by 4.3 million with a 51.3% share

Best-case scenario
2000 Voter turnout in 2004: Gore 99%, Bush 97%
Kerry wins by 6.0 million with a 52.0% share


Cast Cast Recorded Alive 98% Final National Exit Poll Turnout%
2000 2000 2000 2004 Turnout Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive
DNV - - - - DNV 22.6 18.0% 54% 45% 1% -
Gore 49.5% 54.8 51.0 52.1 50.5 Gore 50.5 40.2 90 10 0 97
Bush 46.7% 51.8 50.5 49.2 48.7 Bush 48.7 38.7 9 91 0 99
Other 3.8% 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 Other 3.9 3.1 64 17 19 98
Margin
Total 110.8 105.4 105.3 103.2 Total 125.74 Share 51.3% 47.9% 0.8% 3.4%
Vote 64.6 60.2 1.0 4.3

Recorded Share 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% -2.5%
Vote 122.3 59.0 62.0 1.2 -3.0
Error -5.9%

Gore Turnout Kerry Share of DNV
Bush 91% 93% 95% 97% 99% Share of 54% 57% 59% 60% 62%
Turnout Kerry Share Bush Kerry Share
91% 51.9% 52.2% 52.4% 52.7% 53.0% 12% 52.5% 53.0% 53.4% 53.6% 53.9%
93% 51.5% 51.8% 52.1% 52.4% 52.7% 11% 52.1% 52.7% 53.0% 53.2% 53.6%
95% 51.1% 51.4% 51.7% 52.0% 52.3% 10% 51.7% 52.3% 52.6% 52.8% 53.2%
97% 50.8% 51.1% 51.4% 51.7% 52.0% 9% 51.3% 51.9% 52.2% 52.4% 52.8%
99% 50.4% 50.7% 51.0% 51.3% 51.6% 8% 51.0% 51.5% 51.8% 52.0% 52.4%

Kerry Margin Kerry Margin
91% 5.7 6.4 7.2 7.9 8.7 12% 5.8 6.5 6.9 7.1 7.6
93% 4.8 5.5 6.3 7.0 7.8 11% 5.3 6.0 6.4 6.7 7.1
95% 3.9 4.6 5.4 6.1 6.9 10% 4.8 5.5 5.9 6.2 6.6
97% 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.2 6.0 9% 4.3 5.0 5.5 5.7 6.1
99% 2.1 2.9 3.6 4.3 5.1 8% 3.8 4.5 5.0 5.2 5.7

____________________________________________

Table 3
Unadjusted National Exit Poll Vote Shares
2000 Voter turnout in 2004: Gore 97%, Bush 99%

The True Kerry vote share is in the range 53.0-53.7%.
His winning margin is in the range 9.3-10.9 million.

Worst-case scenario
2000 Voter turnout in 2004: Gore 97%, Bush 99%
Kerry wins by 9.3 million with a 53.0% share

Best-case scenario
Turnout: Gore 99%, Bush 97%
Kerry wins by 10.9 million with a 53.7% share


Cast Cast Recorded Alive 98% National Exit Poll Turnout%
2000 2000 2000 2004 Turnout Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive
DNV - - - - 22.59 18.0% 59 39 2 -
Gore 49.5% 54.84 51.00 52.09 50.53 50.53 40.2% 91 8 1 97
Bush 46.7% 51.81 50.46 49.22 48.73 48.73 38.8% 10 90 0 99
Other 3.8% 4.18 3.96 3.97 3.89 3.89 3.1% 64 17 19 98
Margin
Total 110.83 105.42 105.28 103.15 125.7 Share 53.0% 45.6% 1.3% 7.4%
Vote 66.67 57.37 1.70 9.31

Recorded Share 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% -2.5%
Vote 122.3 59.0 62.0 1.2 -3.0
Diff 4.8% -5.1% 0.3% 9.9%

Gore Turnout Kerry Share of DNV
Bush 91% 93% 95% 97% 99% Share of 54% 57% 59% 60% 62%
Turnout Kerry Share Bush Kerry Share
91% 53.8% 54.0% 54.3% 54.6% 54.8% 12% 52.9% 53.4% 53.8% 54.0% 54.3%
93% 53.4% 53.6% 53.9% 54.2% 54.4% 11% 52.5% 53.1% 53.4% 53.6% 54.0%
95% 53.0% 53.3% 53.5% 53.8% 54.1% 10% 52.1% 52.7% 53.0% 53.2% 53.6%
97% 52.6% 52.9% 53.1% 53.4% 53.7% 9% 51.7% 52.3% 52.6% 52.8% 53.2%
99% 52.2% 52.5% 52.8% 53.0% 53.3% 8% 51.4% 51.9% 52.3% 52.4% 52.8%

Kerry Margin Kerry Margin
91% 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.2 13.9 12% 9.2 9.8 10.3 10.5 11.0
93% 10.3 10.9 11.6 12.3 12.9 11% 8.7 9.3 9.8 10.0 10.5
95% 9.3 10.0 10.6 11.3 11.9 10% 8.2 8.9 9.3 9.5 10.0
97% 8.3 9.0 9.6 10.3 10.9 9% 7.7 8.4 8.8 9.0 9.5
99% 7.3 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.0 8% 7.2 7.9 8.3 8.6 9.0

____________________________________________

Table 4
Voter Turnout vs Uncounted Votes
Kerry 59% share of DNV

Worst Case Scenario:
Gore 97/ Bush 99% turnout; Gore 50% Uncounted
Kerry wins by 7.6 million with 52.4%

Base Case Scenario:
Gore 98/ Bush 98% turnout; Gore 70% Uncounted
Kerry wins by 10.1 million with 53.3%

Best Case Scenario:
Gore 99/ Bush 97% turnout; Gore 75% Uncounted
Kerry wins by 11.3 million with 53.8%

Voter Turnout vs. Gore share of Uncounted

Voter Turnout
Gore 97.0% 97.5% 98.0% 98.5% 99.0%
Bush 99.0% 98.5% 98.0% 97.5% 97.0%
Gore%
Unctd Kerry Share
75% 53.2% 53.3% 53.5% 53.7% 53.8%
70% 53.0% 53.2% 53.3% 53.5% 53.7%
65% 52.9% 53.0% 53.2% 53.3% 53.5%
55% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.0% 53.2%
50% 52.4% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 53.0%
Kerry Margin
75% 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.9 11.3
70% 9.3 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.9
65% 8.9 9.3 9.7 10.1 10.5
55% 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.3 9.7
50% 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.3


____________________________________________

Table 5

Voter Turnout v. Kerry New (DNV) Voter Share

Worst Case Scenario: Final NEP
Kerry 54% of DNV, Gore 97/Bush 99% turnout
Kerry wins by 8.2 million with 52.1%

Base Case Scenario: 730pm NEP
Kerry 59% of DNV, Gore 98/Bush 98% turnout
Kerry wins by 10.1 million with 53.3%

Best Case Scenario: 4pm NEP
Kerry 62% of DNV, Gore 99/Bush 97% turnout
Kerry wins by 11.6 million with 54.2%


Voter Turnout vs. Kerry Share of DNV

Voter Turnout
Gore 97.0% 97.5% 98.0% 98.5% 99.0%
Bush 99.0% 98.5% 98.0% 97.5% 97.0%
Kerry%
DNV Kerry Share NEP
62% 53.6% 53.7% 53.9% 54.0% 54.2% 4pm
59% 53.0% 53.2% 53.3% 53.5% 53.7% 730pm
57% 52.7% 52.8% 53.0% 53.1% 53.3% 1222am
54% 52.1% 52.3% 52.4% 52.6% 52.8% Final
Kerry Margin
62% 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.2 11.6
59% 9.3 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.9
57% 8.8 9.3 9.7 10.1 10.5
54% 8.2 8.6 9.0 9.4 9.8

____________________________________________

Table 6

RETURNING VOTER TURNOUT

2000 Gore Bush Other
Uncounted 70% 25% 5%
5% Mortality 5% 5% 5%
98% Turnout 98% 98% 98%
105.42 Recorded 51.00 50.46 3.96
5.41 Uncounted 3.79 1.35 0.27
110.83 Cast 54.79 51.81 4.23
5.54 Died 2.74 2.59 0.21
105.28 Alive 52.05 49.22 4.02
2004
103.18 Return 51.01 48.23 3.94
Pct Votes Cast 40.57% 38.36% 3.13%

But what if returning Gore voter turnout did not equal Bush voter turnout?

Three Scenarios:
98 Gore/98% Bush: Gore by 2.78 million (equal turnout)
99 Gore/97% Bush: Gore by 3.79 million
97 Gore/99% Bush: Gore by 1.76 million


Table 7

KEY RESULTS

Votes Cast 125.74 Share Min Max
New Voters 22.57 17.9% 17.0% 18.9%
Kerry 13.31 59% - -
Bush 8.80 39% - -

Margin 4.51 4.51 4.27 4.76
Turnout 105.09 98% 97% 99%

Turnout Gore 97% 98% 99%
Return Gore 50.49 51.01 51.53
2004 Mix 40.15% 40.57% 40.98%

Turnout Bush 99% 98% 97%
Return Bush 48.73 48.23 47.74
2004 Mix 38.8% 38.4% 38.0%

Gore Margin 1.76 2.78 3.79


Table 8
2004 NEW VOTERS

Returning 2000 Voter Turnout in 2004
Unctd 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%
2000 New voters (millions)
5.8 24.31 23.25 22.19 21.14 20.08
5.6 24.49 23.43 22.38 21.33 20.27
5.4 24.67 23.62 22.57 21.51 20.46
5.2 24.85 23.80 22.75 21.70 20.65
5.0 25.04 23.99 22.94 21.89 20.84
New voters % of Total Cast
5.8 19.3% 18.5% 17.7% 16.8% 16.0%
5.6 19.5% 18.6% 17.8% 17.0% 16.1%
5.4 19.6% 18.8% 17.9% 17.1% 16.3%
5.2 19.8% 18.9% 18.1% 17.3% 16.4%
5.0 19.9% 19.1% 18.2% 17.4% 16.6%

Kerry New Voter Share
Unctd 52% 54% 57% 59% 62%
2000 Kerry New Voter Margin
5.8 1.46 2.33 3.55 4.23 5.22
5.6 1.47 2.34 3.58 4.27 5.27
5.4 1.48 2.36 3.61 4.30 5.32
5.2 1.49 2.38 3.64 4.34 5.37
5.0 1.50 2.40 3.67 4.38 5.42


Table 9

KERRY RETURNING GORE/BUSH VOTER MARGIN
Returning 2000 Voter Turnout in 2004
Gore 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%
Bush 100% 99% 98% 97% 96%

Gore%
Unctd Returning Share Margin
75% 1.77% 2.19% 2.61% 3.02% 3.44%
70% 1.38% 1.79% 2.21% 2.62% 3.03%
65% 0.98% 1.39% 1.80% 2.22% 2.63%
60% 0.58% 0.99% 1.40% 1.81% 2.22%
55% 0.19% 0.60% 1.00% 1.41% 1.82%

Return Voter Margin
75% 2.23 2.75 3.28 3.80 4.32
70% 1.73 2.25 2.77 3.29 3.81
65% 1.23 1.75 2.27 2.79 3.31
60% 0.73 1.25 1.77 2.28 2.80
55% 0.24 0.75 1.26 1.77 2.29

Table 10
KERRY NEW VOTER MARGIN
Returning 2000 Voter Turnout in 2004
Gore 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%
Bush 100% 99% 98% 97% 96%

Kerry%
New
61% 5.66 5.54 5.41 5.29 5.16
59% 4.72 4.62 4.51 4.41 4.30
57% 3.78 3.69 3.61 3.53 3.44
54% 2.36 2.31 2.26 2.20 2.15
53% 1.89 1.85 1.80 1.76 1.72

KERRY NEW AND RETURNING GORE/BUSH VOTER MARGIN
61% 7.40 7.79 8.19 8.58 8.98
59% 6.45 6.87 7.28 7.70 8.12
57% 5.51 5.94 6.38 6.82 7.26
54% 4.09 4.56 5.03 5.50 5.97
53% 3.62 4.10 4.58 5.06 5.54


KERRY NET DEFECTION AND THIRD PARTY VOTER MARGIN
According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll:
Kerry had a 64-17% margin (1.7m) of 3.6 million returning 3rd party voters.
Kerry had 10% (4.8m) of returning Bush voters.
Bush had 8% (4.1m) of returning Gore voters.
The 2% net defection to Kerry increased his margin by 0.7 million.

Add 2.4 million to the Kerry margin.
The most likely True Vote scenario: Kerry wins by 10 million votes.

Thanks TIA. Can't figure out why this hasn't gotten more attention. The Rasmussen poll was suspiciously anomalous, and Brad Friedman sounded the alarm about LHS before the election, or tried to, and then sure enough, another anomalous GOP win electing an unqualified senator. And of course Coakley conceded forthwith. But hardly a peep from the blogosphere or any sphere about election fraud, like it's a non-issue. It's truly perplexing.

p.s. I posted here because the Coakley thread is locked
.............
p.p.s: on closer examination, I can see WHY it was locked. Nevertheless, the scarcity of attention to obvious indicators of election fraud is really disturbing. Even Big O sounded shaken up in his last couple of speeches, like he needed to invent a new populist persona because he'd been rebuked. He did much the same when he lost New Hampshire (also tabulated by LHS), though less abjectly.

Seriously, hasn't anyone told him about this whole election business? Sometimes I wonder just how clueless he really is.

This has also been posted on Buzzflash, Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz.

It made the front page on Buzzflash. There was one troll who replied - and I responded accordingly. These guys should contact Cass Sunstein for a job if they don't have one. None dare call it conspiracy.
http://buzzflash.net/user.php?login=truthisall&view=published

Most reasonable readers can see the significance of this post. It is hard to understand why some are bothered by the FACT that Oakley won the handcounts. The post is a simple statement of fact.

Why would they be opposed?
Could it be that they are against fair elections?
Could it be that they have an agenda?
Could it be that they are just doing what they have been assigned to do?
Could it be that they have nothing better to do than to hijack posts?
Could it be that they have a lot of time on their hands because they can't find a job?
Could it be that they are so insecure that they have to vent?
Could it be that they are trying to exact revenge for having been exposed in the past?
Maybe it's a combination of the above.

Don't they realize that they are doing themselves and PI a disservice by turning off potential PI posters with their arrogant, confrontational, inane postings?

LuperCalio, thanks for replying.
We are cut from the same mold.
We think for ourselves.
We want to know the FACTS.
We know that only the TRUTH will set us free.
We know that those who seek to cut off legitimate debate are not our allies.

Those who always look to incite flame wars are convicted by a google search of their posting history. They forget that there is a permanent record which can be displayed at any time to illustrate the pattern of their abuse.

on Buzzflash. "Bev agrees that Coakley definitely lost"? That's supposed to end the discussion? I haven't seen that kind of debunko action since DU days. I guess that's why nobody has the heart to discuss it much there any more, or maybe I just didn't notice. I did see a DU thread reporting the handcounts but it sank fast with few comments. Triumph of the trolls I suppose, and look where that got us--Obama doesn't even know wtf is going on.

my post bitching about the thread below being locked has been disappeared as well.

Nice going guys.

Some fuckin' example you set...

Why?

I never deleted a thread. Never even thought of doing so.
Never even KNEW that I could.

I have NEVER LOCKED threads.
Someone else has LOCKED MY threads on ELECTIONS without informing me.
THERE ARE THREADS ON ELECTIONS THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS LOCKED. WHY?

Tinoire gave me the option of editing MY old threads without the need to worry about a time limit. I have done that.

NOW, WHO HAS LOCKED MY THREADS? AND WHY?
AT LEAST GIVE US A REASON.
NO REASON. NADA.
I GUESS SOMEONE MUST HAVE DISRUPTED (HEHEHE)

AT LEAST ON DU THEY TELL YOU WHEN THEY LOCK.
AND THEY USUALLY SAY WHY.
NOT HERE.

something. This is not the way TA does things - no way!

I have no idea. I assumed that Tinoire gave you some permissions for this section - which is fine with me and I wouldn't change. This is your baby here. I assumed you locked that "award" thread because it was not a discussion but more of an announcement. I know that you pin a lot of threads.

Whatever you want to do here TIA is fine with me. If someone else is screwing with threads here... don't know. It would have to be Tinoire or me or Megan I think, and it isn't me.

It's right where you left it. Seriously, could you be any pettier? And why are you so interested in making false charges against TIA, anyway? Is there something about his work you disagree with? I'm not understanding the reasons for your utterly off-topic complaints.