Late last week, Rolling Stone published an article by Robert Kennedy, Jr. that asks provocatively, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" While it covers many topics involving alleged suppression and fraud in Ohio, the article disappoints in its discussion of the exit poll controversy, because on that aspect of the controversy Kennedy manages to dredge up nearly every long-ago discredited distortion or half-truth on this subject without any acknowledgement of contrary arguments or the weaknesses in his argument. It is as if the exit poll debate of the last eighteen months never happened. With this two-part post, I want to review the article’s discussion of the exit poll controversy in-depth, for it provides a good opportunity to learn something about what exit polls can tell us — and mostly what they cannot — about whether fraud was committed in the 2004 elections.
But before getting to exit polls I want to make two things clear. First, despite its weaknesses, the Kennedy article raises some important and troubling questions about real problems in Ohio in 2004. As Ohio State University Law Professor Dan Tokaji puts it, the article is "useful in exposing how shoddy election administration practices can result in lost votes, and how some recently enacted laws will make things worse rather than better." The summary of problems deserving attention includes long lines in minority precincts, efforts of the Republican Party to selectively challenge (or "cage") new registrants and the many examples of pure incompetence by local election officials. And then there is partisanship of Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, now his party’s nominee for governor. Blackwell will need to answer to Ohio voters for, as Salon.com’s Farhad Manjoo writes, having "used his powers for partisan gain," issuing "a series of arbitrary and capricious voting and registration rules that could well have disenfranchised many people in the state" (but interests disclosed: I am a Democratic pollster with clients in Ohio)
Second, while I have devoted 68 posts and tens of thousands of words to the exit poll controversy since Election Day 2004, I have never argued that the exit polls can be used to rule out or disprove the possibility that vote fraud may have occurred in Ohio or anywhere else during in 2004. 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.
Everyone agrees that the 2004 exit poll results gathered by the news media consortium known National Election Pool (NEP) showed a small but statistically significant difference that favored John Kerry when compared to the official count. But is that discrepancy evidence of fraud? It might be, if we could rule out the possibility that other problems or potential sources of error in the exit polls that can also explain the discrepancy. 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.
The rest of this post (and the one or more parts that follow) will review the exit poll section of the RFK, Jr. Rolling Stone article line by line. Passages from the article are in bold italics.
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren’t just off the mark — they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error.
It is certainly true that the 2004 exit poll estimates produced by the National Election Pool (NEP) generally overstated John Kerry’s share of the vote compared to the vote count. That overstatement in statewide exit poll estimates averaged five (5) percentage points on the Bush-Kerry margin, according to the report that the exit pollsters, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, released in January 2005.
The overstatement was slightly larger (5.5 percentage points) for the estimate of the national popular vote. The national exit poll sample showed Kerry with 51% and Bush with 48%, but the final count showed a 2.5% margin (50.73% for Bush and 48.27% for Kerry). It was larger still (6.5 percentage points) in terms of the average error within individual precincts — something the report termed "within precinct error" (WPE).
The key point: Everyone — including the exit pollsters — agrees that the average discrepancy was statistically significant.
In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)
No. While the discrepancy was certainly widespread, this sentence misstates the statistics provided in the citation, the Edison-Mitofsky report. Even if we ignore statistical significance and simply count up the number of states where the exit poll running showed Kerry doing better than the count even by some small fraction of a percent, then the discrepancies favored Bush in all but nine states, not four (see pp. 22-23). The reference to four states appears to come from the number of states where exit polls overstated Kerry’s vote by more than one standard error. But the equivalent number where the discrepancy favored President Bush by more than one standard error was 26 states, not "all but four."
And to try to translate that into something approximating English, a difference of one standard error or more means that we can be roughly 68% confident that the difference is meaningful. "Statistical significance" is a subjective judgment — in the eye of the beholder — but in attitude surveys that term usually implies a confidence level of 95% or greater.
Aside from the distortion of the statistics, however, this point is not particularly relevant. Again, everyone agrees that the overall exit poll discrepancy was widespread and statistically significant.
Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed.
It is certainly true that exit polls benefit from having ready access to actual voters who have just made their choices. Exit pollsters need not jump through hoops to identify "likely voters" nor find ways to allocate those who say they are "undecided." And yes, if you look back at my first post on exit polls on Election Day 2004, I too described exit polls as "among the most sophisticated and reliable political surveys available."
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.
[Clarification: the exit pollsters used telephone surveys to reach absentee voters in 2004 in 13 states that had high proportions of absentee or
vote-by-mail voters. However, these telephone
face all the usual challenges of preelection surveys in identifying actual voters].
Most important, exit polls rely on their interviewers to randomly select voters at each polling place. Interviewers are instructed to keep a running tally of voters as they exit the polling place and attempt to interview only those voters at a specific "interval," such as every third voter or every fifth that passes by. A host of real world conditions, such as — the number of precincts voting at any given polling places, how far the interviewer is required to stand from the exit, the number of exits, inclement weather or simply the interviewer’s level of experience — can interfere with their ability to intercept and interview voters at random.
Exit poll interviewers must also cope with a phenomenon impossible on telephone polls: Curious voters who offer to volunteer to participate, even if they would not have been selected according to the random interval procedure.
Finally, the NEP exit pollsters face an immense logistical challenge: Once every four years, they conduct exit polls both nationally and in every state. Thus, they must recruit and deploy enough interviewers to cover nearly 1500 precincts scattered randomly throughout 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent.(17)
Not true. That 0.3% statistic comes from averages calculated by Steven Freeman on the exit polls conducted by one German exit pollster (Forschungsgruppe Wahlen) for the ZDF television network in elections held in 2002, 1998 and 1994. But even Freeman’s paper concedes that other German exit polls have been off by slightly more, and in one case by as much as 1.5% for individual candidates.
The results were also not quite so accurate for FG Wahlen in the 2005 parliamentary elections (results available here). They showed a slightly higher error averaged across the five main parties (0.9%). However, if we group the parties into coalitions as Freeman did in his paper "to make the numbers more comparable to the U.S. Presidential election" (p. 8, see table 1.3) the most recent F.G. Wahlen exit poll showed an error on the margin of 3.8% (my calculation).
However, while the more recent German exit polls may not be quite as "exquisitely accurate" as Kennedy implies, he and Freeman are right that the German exit polls have typically been more accurate than in the U.S. And as I explained back in December 2004, that greater accuracy occurs for sound fundamental reasons having to do with measures that appear to reduce sampling, coverage and non-response error: The German exit polls feature larger sample sizes and benefit from significantly better cooperation from election officials. FG Wahlen assigns two "experienced" interviewers per precinct and they are allowed to stand at the door of the polling place for the entire day. The NEP assigned one interviewer to a polling place in 2004, three quarters had never worked as an exit poll interviewer before, all had to leave the their polling place uncovered several times during the day and only about half were allowed to stand inside or just outside the door of the polling place. The German exit pollsters typically obtain an 80% response rate, the US exit polls in 2004 had a 53% completion rate (p. 31). All of this means that the German exit polls are less prone to coverage and response error.
”Exit polls are almost never wrong,” Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ”so reliable,” he added, ”that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.”(18)
Dick Morris is entitled to his opinion, but many others with more relevant exit poll experience disagree. As noted here eighteen months ago (and reported this weekend by Salon’s Farhad Manjoo, the ACE Project (an acronym for Administration and Cost of Elections, a joint project funded by the UN and the US Agency for International Development) concluded:
[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
Also, as Bard College political scientist Mark Lindeman reports, senior election observers from the Carter Center have repeatedly advised against the use of exit polls for election monitoring in Central American Countries, calling them "risky," "unreliable" and "misleading."
In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down.(19) And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.(20)
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."
The report of MIT Political Scientist Charles Stewart (as aptly summarized by Salon’s Farhad Manjoo) also provides a series of reasons worth reviewing as to why the Ukraine example provides a poor parallel to the 2004 U.S. election.
But that same month, when exit polls revealed disturbing disparities in the U.S. election, the six media organizations that had commissioned the survey treated its very existence as an embarrassment.
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).
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.
Continues with Part II…..
Suggestions for further reading in the meantime on the jump.
[Typos corrected]
For those who cannot wait for the next installment, I strongly recommend these two early reports on the RFK, Jr. Rolling Stone article:
- Farhad Manjoo’s piece for Salon, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No."
- Ohio State University Law Professor Dan Tokaji’s blog post, "Back to Ohio: The Rolling Stone Piece."
Also highly recommended: two papers presented at the recent AAPOR conference that directly address other contentions in the Rolling Stone Article:
- Mark Lindeman, "Beyond Exit Poll Fundamentalism: Surveying the 2004 Election Debate"
- Elizabeth Liddle, "A Review of the Gun is Smoking, 2004"
Interests declared: Both Liddle and Lindeman are friends and have
contributed suggestions and comments for this blog post, although I
take full responsibility for the final product. Both have made
important, arguably heroic contributions to this debate in the face of
personal and often anonymous attacks on their reputation and character.
One point of interest MP made is that exit polls fail to sample mail-in and absentee ballot votes and that these forms of voting having increased recently. Is there a measurement of how these votes fall? If it is more toward Bush then case solved. If it is more toward Kerry, there is a greater discrepancy that needs to be explained.
Good catch mdh, but my omission:
I probably should have said that *polling place* samples miss absentee voters. However, the exit pollsters used telephone interviewing to try to interview absentee voters in 13 states that had high proportions of absentee or vote-by-mail voters. The important point is that these telephone surveys lack the advantage of grabbing actual voters right after casting their ballots.
I am new to this issue, but have two thoughts to offer.
One, I am a registered democrat. However, I voted for Bush. When I got accosted for an exit pole, a dear friend who I attended the polls with was nearby and in the commotion could hear my discussion with the pollster. It was not a properly “insulated” experience, and I will confess that I found it much easier to simply lie and say I voted for Kerry than to have to deal with my friend and her likely overwrought disappointment.
Second, the “move on” types were in high visibility at my polling place, just beyond the electioneering boundary. Which incidentally is where the pollsters were. I suspect aside from “friend” or “spouse” situations that lead people to lie to the pollsters, there may have been an impact from the moveon.org types’ presence as well.
A final observation: It occurred to me that my prevarication (i.e., not owning up to voting for Bush) is probably the more common one. Perhaps as a result of the level of hyperbole from the left or whatever, I dare say that conservatives who voted for Kerry felt less anxiety about sharing their choice as liberals who voted for Bush. To be sure, the plural of anecdote is not “data,” but my experience cannot be far off from many others who will have lied to pollsters.
I don’t give exit polls any credit because they assume they people will be honest. I have been exit-polled twice in my life, In 1996, I told them I voted for Perot. (I voted for Dole). In 2004, during a primary, I told them I voted for Dennis Kucinich. (I voted for Al Sharpton!).
Thanks for the response. Nevertheless, it seems that in places where exit polling was the sole form, the question still remains (other than those 13 states referred to above). Is there a separate physical count of mail in and absentee ballots?
It’s a shame RFK, Jr. chose statistics and anecdotes that exaggerate this issue, because there seems to be some important core issues underneath. Or is it a case of arguing the extreme to bring attention to the middle?
The most interesting line of the article for me was …
In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988.
Why is that? What media bias?
If there is any doubt about fraud in ’04 read the Conyer’s report. As for the polls.. Although I am not a pollster, I don’t agree with most of the points in the article or posts here. I noticed that even using the current formula to say that NINE states actually favored Kerry; 9 out of twenty-six? Shouldn’t it be closer to 50/50? Flip a coin 26 times and tell me how many heads you get. If there are so many liars out there skewing the polls, aren’t there just as many lying about each candidate? (Posters: If you want people to trust your opinion, you may not want to state you lie about the subject matter.) There are right wing pollsters out there who say exactly the opposite of what is here. I can say I am truly glad there are people picking apart RFK’s article: this needs to be talked about more than just on Jone’s and AAR.
Crisco, despite the posts upthread, I don’t think most of the exit poll problems have to do with people actually lying to pollsters. (The big presidential exit poll uesd a written survey, so I’m not sure who was _talking_ with Gonzo about his or her vote.) There is no question that more states skewed toward Kerry than toward Bush; MB was just complaining that RFK seemed to stretch to make the skew seem even more one-sided than it was.
Salon Shoots Down Kennedy Article
This is really something. Salon is, by most accounts, a left-leaning website. How far left is a matter of debate, but I will say that I’ve had links come in from that site in the past, and the comments were all from foaming-at-the-mouth liberals.
S
Crisco, you don’t know anything about coin flips. Flipping a fair coin only 26 times and getting 9 heads is not some completely abnormal phenomenon. In fact, it will happen 4.66% of the time. Getting 13 heads will happen 15.50% of the time. If you do get 9 heads on 26 flips, you cannot rebut the null hypothesis of a fair coin at the 95% confidence interval (Z = 1.9599, p = 34.62%, E = 19.22%, range 15.40% – 53.84%). Finally, if you asked everyone in America to flip a coin 26 times, 9 of them would get all heads or all tails. Maybe you should learn something about statistics before you shove your foot in your mouth again.
Gonzo, your story confirms that the election was fixed. You are a Democrat, your vote is therefore a Democratic vote. But it was counted for Bush rather than for Kerry. Obvious fraud, don’t you see?!
DM, you cite media bias. There is very little bias in the media. All biased people vote for the GOP, and media surveys show that only between 10 and 15% of the US news media vote for the GOP. It is obvious that the US news media is among the least biased groups in the population.
The problem is not biased media, it is biased voters. Measures need to be taken to screen these people, then we will fair and honest elections at last.
Ohio was stolen! Not.
Hat tip Allah for two great links. Click here and here. The Commissar has an excellent related post here. *** 2006.06.05 Mystery Pollster has an excellent related article here.
Hey Joey, don’t get so snarky. {:^)
“Maybe you should learn something about statistics before you shove your foot in your mouth again.”
A lot of very well-meaning people don’t quite understand the laws of probability.
On the other hand, you are exactly correct. Within the laws of probability, of course.
Maybe all people “commenting” should be required to hike on down to their local commmunity college and take
“Elementary Logic, 101”
“Elementary Statistics, 101”
Is there some course in “Elementary Lying about any issue in general, 101” ?
Seems a LOT of people in the world got a “A plus”.
*sigh* Umm, actually, I believe that is 9 blue shifts out of 50 jurisdictions (including DC, not including Oregon), so Crisco got basically the right answer for not quite the right reason.
Mark B. didn’t point this out directly, but there seems to be a specific problem with RFK’s first claim: he meant, or should have meant, that results in 30 states were off by more than one standard error, not by more than their “margin of error.” Plus-or-minus one standard error is roughly half the conventional margin of error (a 95% confidence interval, roughly plus or minus two standard errors). 26 of those had red shift and 4 had blue shift. Again, definitely a disproportionate result — although absolutely not the result that RFK reported.
It appears to me that fourteen states were off by two or more standard errors; thirteen had red shift and one (South Dakota) had blue shift. Again, definitely a disproportionate result.
Oh, but Crisco: even though I don’t especially think there were lots of lying respondents, if there were, I wouldn’t expect an equal number of liars on both sides. Just a hunch. Stuff tends not to cancel out as neatly as one would like.
“Flip a coin 26 times and tell me how many heads you get. If there are so many liars out there skewing the polls, aren’t there just as many lying about each candidate?”
This common sentiment is a product of almost wilfull ignorance, and if anything is an indictment of the Internet itself.
No, of course there were not just as many lying about each candidate. Bush was almost as unpopular two years ago as he is now, and publically supporting him was about as socially unacceptable as could be. We saw every celebrity and cool person in America speak out for Kerry. We saw admitted Bush voters mocked and heckled mercilessly for ten months. Yet somehow, the nutroots Internet crowd can not conceive how Bush voters would be several percentage points more likely than Kerry voters to lie to- and mostly, to simply avoid speaking to- pollsters.
You ostracized them, embarassed them, ridiculed them, mimicked them, and shouted them down on television, radio, and to their faces for almost a year. Fair enough. You accomplished your mission, and convinced legions of young and stupid people how important it was to “Yo get out and vote man.”
But when the dust settles, don’t look around and wonder at the mess you’ve made and how it got there, and certainly don’t blame the other guy.
This whole thing can be explained by one simple fact–
The exit polls were manipulated to reflect a larger vote for Kerry than was actually happening. This was done in order to cause Bush voters waiting for later in the day to give up and go home without voting.
And it was a good scheme, mainly because most Bush voters actually do work, and can’t vote until they leave work. Kerry voters can amble into the voting booth whenever they wake up, perhaps on the way to the welfare office to pick up their checks. It’s not difficult to imagine that if one successfully discouraged Bush voters during the day, one might reduce the total Bush votes significantly by closing time.
Whoever attempted this trick was doubtless shocked to find that, in spite of a successful ploy, so many people were voting for Bush that the ploy made no difference in the outcome. Except that the outcome now was so widely different from the exit polls that this itself became the story.
Can you say “blowback”?
The Mystery Pollster: RFK, Jr., Ignores Exit Poll Flaws
Much was made (mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course) of Robert Kennedy, Jr.s assertion that Ohio was stolen in 2004, prominently made recently in Rolling Stone. Mark Blumenthal, otherwise known as the Mystery Pollster, is an expert (a…
Good call Dave. No one in their right mind would use a sample of, say, 10 marbles to estimate the number of red marbles in a bucket full of red and blue marbles, then turn around and claim that the bucket was fraudulent when the sample estimate turned out to be inaccurate.
Translated to the debate on the 2004 election, we can say that the discrepancies between the polls and the election results were not due to a fraudulent election, but to fraudulent polling — nationwide and on a massive scale.
To my knowledge, there are representatives of both parties at all voting precincts. Who is watching over the pollsters? What stops them from simply padding their results if they are inclined to do so (an it appears they may have been so inclined)?
What is needed here is not an investigation into the election process in Ohio, but an extensive investigation into an obvious attempt by exit pollsters to influence the outcome of the election.
dave: One problem with your theory (which you call “one simple fact”) is that you don’t present the slightest evidence for it..
beimani–Somehow the thought never seems to occur to you that there could be explanations other than either deliberate poll manipulation or vote fraud.
California Primary: Political Tidbits
1. The San Francisco Chronicle has finally found a tax increase they oppose! Congratulations to the Chronicle Editorial Board for opposing Prop. 82. If they used the same reasoning on other tax increases and bonds, they would oppose all of them on …
2004 Election Stolen
…says a presumably sober, substance-free Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr. in Rolling Stone Magazine. (Yes, he is related to JFK, Patrick, and Ted, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.)Left of center e-mag Salon has a l …
To bloddy hell with the exit polls! Typical of Republicans, you’ll find one flaw in the argument out of hundreds pieces of evidence and hammer on that until the cows come home. There is plenty of other documented evidence that Republican dirty tricks were in full play. Whether or not they caused Bush to win may never really be known, as those in control of the evidence (Ken Blackwell, et. al.) will either bury it or destroy it. Why are Republicans committed to fewer people actually getting to vote? Because they loose on the issues that matter to Americans! What are they talking about today, with Iraq melting down, gas prices through the roof, and the Fed planning to raise interest rates for the 17th time? Gay friggin’ marriage. Jesus, Mary and Holy Saint Joseph! Is that really the Republican strategy for victory this November? Can they really actually win without voter fraud? Are Americans really stupid enough to fall for that again? God help us if they are…
1. I always lie to pollsters.
2. I’m a Libertarian, and most pollsters have never HEARD of Libertarians, so even if I told the truth to pollsters (which I never do) they’d probably get it wrong by lumping me in with the Undecideds and the Perotistas and the Greens.
3. Dave suggests that the undue emphasis on polls is a sneaky way to suppress the Republican, that is to say “employed”, vote. David T complains that Dave cites no evidence. Here’s some. In 2000, all the networks released the Florida results of the Bush-Gore race at 8:15 PM, right after the polls closed, stating that Gore was the winner. The only problem is, the Panhandle of Florida is in the Central time zone, so “Gore Wins!” is on the radio while Panhandle precints, arguably the most conservative, are still open. I know three people who told me that they were on their way to vote at 7:30 CST, heard the election results that Gore had won, and drove straight to the bar to get drunk. If one percent of the probable Bush voters had done that, then the “actual” results should have given Bush enough votes to forever resolve the issue.
Did they lie? Who knows? The point is that the networks NEVER make this sort of error in the GOP’s favor, but FREQUENTLY make similar errors in the Dem’s favor.
If Brian (the poster commenting above) is such a pathological liar, at least when it comes to answering exit pollsters, why should any of us assume he is not lying in the post here. Maybe he never voted at all, or votes for GOP candidates every time. It reminds me of the ancient story of the Cretin who asserts that all Cretins are liars.
Gonzo, that sort of thing happens all the time, on both sides–think married couples, for example.
Dave, the demographics don’t bear you out here, try again.
HitNRun, actually, no, Bush is *way* more unpopular now than he was two years ago. More’s the pity.
Ken, the first network to call the 2000 election (too early) was Fox, when they called Florida for Bush. Look it up.
ewastud,
He’s obviously lying–who would vote for Dole *and* Sharpton? 🙂
Stealing the 2004 Election Revisited
Today Mark Blumenthal, the Mystery Pollster, posted part 1 of his response to Kennedy’s article. It’s well worth reading. Before discussing the exit polls, he agrees that Ohio did not conduct a squeaky-clean election but argues that fraud has not been …
Blumenthal presents some valid points and, perhaps the exit polls do not provide absolute proof of fraud in favor of Bush, but they certainly CAN be interpreted to suggest it. Taken in conjunction with the MULTITUDE of other evidence of Election fraud in the Kennedy article and elsewhere, it becomes much harder to say that the discrepancies that the Exit Polls indicate are not completely consistent with the greater evidence of election fraud favoring Bush.
What happened in the 12 Rural Counties in Ohio is by itself evidence enough to say with virtual certainty that something was rotten in Denmark (or Ohio, if you will) and by itself was possibly enough to have shifted the results of the election. And why did GOP officials in Warren County conspire to lock out observers of the counting process by inventing a terrorist threat? Finally, if the vote really was on the up and up, why not allow the recount to go forward in the prescribed and legal fashion, rather than gaming it as it has been proven to have occurred?
The bottom line is, we shouldn’t even have to ask these questions in a country that is supposed to be a democracy and in which honest, fair and verifiable elections MUST be the cornerstone of that democracy. This should NOT be a partisan issue to anyone who really believes in the American Democracy as it is supposed to be. Our election system is an absolute mess, and, like so many other things, has been co-opted by private and partisan concerns who, in this case, claim that their proprietary interests should trump the needs of the electorate to be certain their votes are being counted in an honest and independent manner.
Simply put, without a uniform, open and verifiable election system, there will continue to be questions of legitimacy, no matter which side wins. One can only imagine how the Republicans would be screaming if everything was reversed and it was the Democrats who were winning under these circumstances.
These problems can be fixed and confidence in the vote and in our democracy can be restored if we take this issue out of the partisan realm in which it is currently being debated and agree that we are all in this great experiment in democracy together.
The most interesting line of the article for me was …
In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988.
Why is that? What media bias?
Posted by: DM | Jun 5, 2006 5:01:38 PM
—————————————-
DM, what it is is compelling evidence that the Republicans have been engaged in widespread and systemic voter fraud for nearly two decades. How do you think the GOP won back the House after losing it for 40+ years? Certainly not by any legitimate means.
Steve,
You are right, the discrepancies between the election results and polling results are evidence of malfeasance. As I said above…
No one in their right mind would use a sample of, say, 10 marbles to estimate the number of red marbles in a bucket full of red and blue marbles, then turn around and claim that the bucket was fraudulent when the sample estimate turned out to be inaccurate.
Translated to the debate on the 2004 election, we can say that the discrepancies between the polls and the election results were not due to a fraudulent election, but to fraudulent polling — nationwide and on a massive scale.
To my knowledge, there are representatives of both parties at all voting precincts. Who is watching over the pollsters? What stops them from simply padding their results if they are inclined to do so (and it appears they may have been so inclined)?
What is needed here is not an investigation into the election process in Ohio, but an extensive investigation into an obvious attempt by exit pollsters to influence the outcome of the election.
Now, David T. suggests “…that there could be explanations other than either deliberate poll manipulation or vote fraud.”
I agree, but we won’t know until a massive bipartisen government investigation of the
pollsters is completed.
BTW: if Kerry had won while the polls reported that Bush was ahead, the media would be all over the polling organization, demanding to know what they did wrong.
“Taken in conjunction with the MULTITUDE of other evidence of Election fraud in the Kennedy article and elsewhere, it becomes much harder to say that the discrepancies that the Exit Polls indicate are not completely consistent with the greater evidence of election fraud favoring Bush.”
No.
The exit poll discrepancies have NOTHING to do with the “multitude of other evidence of Election fraud in the Kennedy article”.
I suspect there were various shenanigans going on in Ohio, but the exit polls do nothing whatsoever to show this. Try reading Blumenthal’s post again carefully.
Kennedy does his cause a serious disservice by not doing the proper research on the details of the exit poll controversy.
Aaron – your comment is so silly is goes beyond reason. Just
accept the simple fact is that your side is now the losing side.
America just does not want what you want.
So sad. This started off as an intelligent discussion. Why don’t the nuts just go to some movie on IMDB and debate the pros and cons of Bush? Let’s say the new Superman. Bush is Lex Luthor! No, Kerry is Lex Luthor! It’s a media consipracy! There is no media conspiracy! The first conspiracy of the media is to hide their conspiracy! I lied when I told people I voted for the Batman movie!
RFK Jr. is at it again, just not about autism this time
I’m probably going to regret posting this article, as I normally don’t venture much into these areas. Chalk it up to its being 6/6/06 and say that the Devil made me do it, but I plan on diving in. Besides,…
No Michael, you are the one in denial. If all of the people who wanted to vote have their votes properly counted, the Republican Party would be a marginal party in America. They would win elections only very occasionally. It is only through vote suppression and fraud that the Republicans have gained their current position. Fortunately, they have peaked and are now in decline. The Democrats are poised to regain power for at least a generation, even taking Republican cheating into consideration.
The only way to completely eradicate the Republican pattern of fraud is if the United States adopts a system of Compulsory Voting. Voting should be mandatory. Every person should have their vote counted. Furthermore, anyone who pays taxes in this country should be allowed to vote, citizen or not. A huge number of people who are paying into the system have no say in it. That is patently unfair, as it is anti-humanitarian and anti-human rights.
Say you are a Union member or a congregation member or family member or social club member that pretty much makes up bulk of voters in Ohio. You are TOLD how you will vote and by God, that better be how you voted. Well now that people are better educated and NOT stupid, what would YOU tell a pollster if you voted against what you were told?
Shorter beimami and poof: Streeeeeeetch.
Aaron:
Non citizens get the right to vote simply because they pay taxes?
Hey, how about this – if you live in Denmark and by an American product, you get to vote in the USA elections!
Goodness, the conspiracy theories are flying, aren’t they? Let’s step back and apply a little common sense here. The simplest explanation is the most likely true. And friends, just because someone is a stated Republican or Democrat doesn’t mean that they are automaticallly corrupt or ignorant. Both parties have plenty of problems. If you don’t believe that Dems can commit vote fraud, search for East St. Louis vote fraud on Google.
Here’s my simple explanation. I’m right-leaning politically but live in the city, so most of my friends lean left. Their hatred for Bush and their desire to get him out of office was strong; strong enough that a better candidate they probably would have won. They weren’t shy about it, and would generally tell everyone. Meanwhile I wasn’t able to talk about it at any point without being shouted down, even among my best friends. It was truly silly season.
I think that influenced the polls. Like it or not, I and many others consider the media to be biased towards the left. You may not agree, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. Since the media runs most polls, I’m wary of polls in general. And I can think of a lot better things to do with my time that talk to a pollster before or after voting. By that time I was pretty conditioned to not speak about my choices as well as it only brought on problems, and I don’t think that I was unique. I think with Dems it was the opposite, as they were eager to express their dislike for Bush. That seems to me to easily cover the five percent or so bias against Bush in the exit polls.
Why are you people bothering to argue with each other? Clearly, most of these posts are just hyperbole. Even those of you who are right (and I imagine you know who you are) are no longer including enough detail to make any headway.
You’re just winding each other up. Hit the gym, lay off the caffeine, learn to knit, increase the dosage, adopt a puppy, add another layer of foil to the hat, whatever it takes. Please.
And being proud of lying to pollsters? That’s just plain weird. I recommend more foil.
Stve if someone lives here, pays taxes, and is in every other way a part of our society, then yes, they should be able to vote regardless of whether they are a citizen or not. Denying them the right to vote is parochial and xenophobic.
This:
The most interesting line of the article for me was …
In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988.
Why is that? What media bias?
And this:
When I got accosted for an exit pole, a dear friend who I attended the polls with was nearby and in the commotion could hear my discussion with the pollster. It was not a properly “insulated” experience, and I will confess that I found it much easier to simply lie and say I voted for Kerry than to have to deal with my friend and her likely overwrought disappointment.
Give me the answer. I know a lot of conservative minorities, mostly Jews and Blacks, who are afraid or embarrassed to admit that they voted republican. I don’t see anything like that on the conservative end to balance it out.
I’m still at work on part II, which will definitely disucss the most likely reasons for the discepancies. But one note to add to this discussion: Others may disagree, but I consider the outright “lying” a very unlikely explanation of the discrepancy.
I did not discuss it above, but one of the advantages of the exit poll is the ability to offer a “secret ballot.” Respondents are offered a paper form and a clip-board that does not ask for a name or identifying information other than their demographics. They can then drop the completed form into a large box. So they never need to explain their vote preference — or lie about it — to an interviewer.
The bigger issue is whether there were differences in the willingness of Kerry and Bush votesr to be interviewed when solicited, to avoid the interviewer (whether they know they are about to be solicited for the poll or not), or to _volunteer_ to be interviewed even if they would not be selected according to the sampling interval procedure.
More on this to follow soon…
Even if I buy your argument that democratic bias is normal, 2004 was the extreme which could in itself be an indication of tampering. It therefore behooves looking at the extreme cases, New Mexico and Ohio. How do the statistics work out there?
The simplest explanation is usually the best one. As Mr. Kennedy has helpfully written that exit polls are incredibly accurate predictors of the actual vote (as opposed to the reported result) I think the conclusion is obvious:
There was a carefully-orchestrated conspiracy of possibly a million Republicans stretching across hundreds of thousands of precincts to pervert the results in George Bush’s favor.
They have managed to keep it all quiet until the unceasing efforts of one honest man has cracked the facade of lies and brought it all out into the open.
That is the simplest explanation of all this.
Actually I underestimated the scale of the conspiracy. More than 62 million were involved….
dgs, in what sense are New Mexico and Ohio the extreme cases? Using the Best Geo estimator (the interview-only model projections), they both had single-digit red shifts, while my home state of New York notched -13.9. Delaware hit -16.0. But the big winner was Vermont at -16.5. I think there were eight other states with double-digit red shifts.
I’m not sure exactly what you were asking about Ohio and New Mexico. The problem isn’t that we think a red shift of the magnitude of 2004 is “normal” — it certainly isn’t. It’s that the red shifts don’t really fit a fraud pattern. (Massive fraud in New York might have been a good idea, but based on the pre-election polls, I just don’t think it happened.) If there was vote count fraud in Ohio, I think staring at 49 exit poll precincts out of over 11,000 precincts statewide is a bad way of trying to find it.
If I were given to weird theories, I would speculate that Rove rigged the exit polls just to make sure everyone looked in the wrong places. But if so, I guess it hasn’t worked, because I don’t actually know of anyone looking for the missing 840,000 votes in New York.
Just one small correction: the paper of mine linked to was not actually presented at AAPOR, although I was discussant at the panel at which a similar paper to the one reviewed was presented by Ron Baiman. My review consists largely of notes I made in response to that paper in my role as discussant. However, as in his oral presentation Baiman referred only briefly to the content of his submitted paper, I did not present my detailed comments at the meeting, and what is linked to is an edited version of those comments relevant to the earlier version of the Baiman Dopp paper cited by Kennedy.
More on RFK Jr. & Election 2004:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defends his Rolling Stone article, and Salon’s Farhad Manjoo responds here.
Also Salon’s Joan Walsh …
I’m not so sure you should discount that people would lie during an exit poll, even a secret “ballot” one. I most definitely would.
There are 2 reasons. One, the media always seems to call states/elections based on the exit polls before the polls are closed. There always seems to be a mixup or a leak, and this to me is unfair to those who haven’t voted yet, especially those like me who live on the west coast. If the polls are unreliable, then elections can’t be called early, so I want the polls to be unreliable.
Two, I live in California. I know very few open Republicans, and many, many outspoken Democrats. I feel it is better for me to keep my political leanings quiet.
These may not be rational thought processes, but of the Republicans I know, they basically feel the way I do.
“Two, I live in California. I know very few open Republicans, and many, many outspoken Democrats. I feel it is better for me to keep my political leanings quiet.
“These may not be rational thought processes, but of the Republicans I know, they basically feel the way I do.”
I too live in CA and am a Republican. Only recently have I began to speak more openly about my political beliefs. For years I’ve been closeted and still remain closeted at school. If my profs found out I was a Republican, my grades would tank. GUARANTEED. I’m not being paranoid – I’ve seen how they treat Republicans and gang up on them in class. Hats off to those brave souls, but I want to keep my 4.0 thank you!
It’s OK, Rick, your secret is safe with us. 😉 (For those who don’t know, Rick and I are colleagues and friends, although by no means copartisans.)
Myra, I’ve been thinking about your comment. I wonder whether there are substantially more Republicans than Democrats who would share and act on your desire to throw off the exit polls by lying to them. And I wonder how many closeted people (of either party) would find it easier to lie on a ‘secret ballot’ than not to fill it out at all — although I’m sure that some would. (Certainly there is precedent for people lying even on ‘secret’ surveys.)
We have a big enough problem trying to deal with non-response bias, since we can’t ‘measure’ the people who don’t respond. Working in deliberate response error takes us that much farther into the realm of speculation, because we can’t know which (if any) respondents lied. But it’s good to be reminded not to assume that any behavior we have trouble measuring doesn’t exist!
you work for who?
mickey, not sure whom you’re asking what. I work at Bard College. (Rick Brady does not, but we have done work together.)
Chutzpah’s Poster Boy
Over at Salon, Steven Freeman tries to defend RFK Jr., and fails.
The basis for your investigation is in my opinion wrong from the getgo: that electronic voting systems should be considered innocent until proven guilty. That principle applies to people, not machines.
As Teresa Hommel says, “Elections are not a court of law where a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Elections deal with a broader issue, the legitimacy and credibility of representative democratic government. Secrecy in the procedures of elections, especially vote counting, is a constant when a system of tyranny poses as democracy by holding sham elections.”
Our American Democracy is not based on hope and trust. Checks and balances insure that chicanery will be revealed.
We should not have to hope and trust that the perveyors of these systems will be honest. It should be totally provable that they are.
There can be no honor system with anything as crucial to our survival as the sacrament of voting.
Arlene, I think you misunderstood Mark B.’s metaphor. It isn’t a matter of assuming that the electronic voting machines are innocent. It’s that if someone claims to have _statistical_ evidence for X (for instance, “the exit polls indicate fraud”), s/he typically presents it as evidence against some alternative null hypothesis.
This is exactly what Freeman and others do when they present by-golly-to-1 odds against various exit poll results being due to chance. Chance is their null hypothesis. The problem is that all parties agree that the exit poll discrepancies _weren’t_ due to chance, so refuting that null hypothesis doesn’t help.
In some cases, one can actually test a null hypothesis that assumes that the exit polls were right. For instance, suppose the exit polls were right, and Bush (or whoever) stole votes in double-digit proportions in New York, Vermont, Alaska, and wherever else he supposedly did (it depends on how you interpret the exit poll results), while maybe Kerry stole some votes in Texas. And so on. Then, if the state pre-election polls are useful AT ALL (even if they have some general tendency to favor one candidate), we would expect Bush to outperform the pre-election polls in states like NY, VT, and AK, or at least to do better relative to the polls than he did in places like TX. We can statistically describe how strong that relationship should be under various assumptions about poll error.
Well, it doesn’t work. If anything, _Kerry_ tended to outperform the pre-election polls in the states where the exit polls supposedly point to fraud favoring Bush. It amounts to pretty strong statistical evidence against the assumption that the exit polls were right.
Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with most of your comments. Mark B. didn’t recommend trusting the machines, and neither do I. Mark B.’s entire post is about exit polls, not about whether electronic voting machines are secure and reliable.
If you aren’t interested in assessing the exit poll evidence, that is fine with me. But please don’t assume that anyone who does want to assess the exit poll evidence is ‘really’ trying to advocate trusting electronic voting machines.
Re: The Horror! Bush stole Ohio in 2004!
Rolling Stone published an article by Robert Kennedy, Jr. that asks provocati…
The Overlooked Exit Poll Question
New Pollster.com readers may not know it, but in the months following the 2004 election I devoted 68 posts and tens of thousands of words to the 2004 exit poll controversy. In about a dozen days, most of us will…