Exit polls or final results: where's truth?

[andrewa]

I subscribe this from www.electoral-vote.com:
"Various people sent me mail saying that it is awfully fishy that the exit polls and final results were substantially different in some places. I hope someone will follow this up and actually do a careful analysis. Does anyone know of a Website containing all the exit poll data? If we go to computerized voting without a paper trail and the machines can be set up to cheat, that is the end of our democracy. Switching 5 votes per machine is probably all it would take to throw an election and nobody would ever see it unless someone compares the computer totals and exit polls. I am still very concerned about the remark of Walden O'Dell a Republican fund raiser and CEO of Diebold, which makes voting machines saying he would deliver Ohio for President Bush. Someone (not me) should look into this carefully. The major newspapers actually recounted all the votes in Florida last time. Maybe this year's project should be looking at the exit polls. If there are descrepancies between the exit polls and the final results in touch-screen counties but not in paper-ballot counties, that would be a signal". 
I think a strong democracy doesn't have fear of the truth. I hope someone can investigate it and assure that Bush victory is real, that America is now a full democracy.

[Silent Hunter]

There's a Slate article on this:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109141/

[CARLHAYDEN]

For over twenty years there has been a steady increase in 'absentee/early' voting.

These votes are NOT counted in the exit polls.

[andrewa]

For over twenty years there has been a steady increase in 'absentee/early' voting.

These votes are NOT counted in the exit polls.

Do you know the final percentage of 'absentee/early' voting respect to 2 november voting ?
And what advantage for Bush in 'absentee/early' voting could justify the exit polls/final results switch (from 51/48 to 48/51)?   
Thank you for your attention,

[andrewa]

There's a Slate article on this:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109141/

Thank you, very interesting.
Do you know if Diebold machines sofware is public ?
Everyone can read it ?
Do you know if RNC and DNC (or some Senate commitee) checked it and approved it before elections ?
Thank you

[CARLHAYDEN]

For over twenty years there has been a steady increase in 'absentee/early' voting.

These votes are NOT counted in the exit polls.

Do you know the final percentage of 'absentee/early' voting respect to 2 november voting ?
And what advantage for Bush in 'absentee/early' voting could justify the exit polls/final results switch (from 51/48 to 48/51)?   
Thank you for your attention,

Since the 'absentee/early' vote has NOT been fully tabulated in many jurisdictions, I cannot provide this at this time.

I will note however, that the 'early/absentee vote' has historically been very favorable to Republicans.

[dazzleman]

The exit polls were not repesentative.  For one thing, the sample was 59% female.  Right there you have a problem.

The early exit polls were obviously taken over only part of the day.  Different types of people vote at different times of the day, so exit poll results that don't encompass a sampling of the entire day's voting are invalid.

With the gender gap, despite its narrowing this election, even a relatively small oversampling of women could tip the results in a close election.

I really would suggest that the Democrats drop this drivel.  Al Gore lost Florida in 2000, albeit very closely, and John Kerry lost Ohio in 2004 by a much wider margin.  Get over it.  Obviously 2000 was far more questionable, but the Democrats remind me of annoying little girls, who can't roll with the punches, and go whining to their teacher or mother over any little thing they don't like.

What should have happened in 2000 is that the Gore and Bush camps should have gotten together, agreed on a recount methodology that would be uniform across the state, and agreed in advance to abide by the results without legal challenges.  As we know from subsequent counts by the liberal NY Times, Bush would have won anyway, but it would have kept it out of the courts.  Gore poisoned the pot when he sought to recount only heavily Democratic counties, and it became clear that he was trolling for votes rather than seeking the legitimate correct answer.

John Kerry had enough sense not to keep up with the counterproductive nonsense, and if Democrats don't get off it, they can expect to continue to lose.  That would be a shame, because we need a true opposition party.

[andrewa]

What should have happened in 2000 is that the Gore and Bush camps should have gotten together, agreed on a recount methodology that would be uniform across the state, and agreed in advance to abide by the results without legal challenges. 

I totally agree with you. I'm not American, but I'm always looking at America like the country of democracy. This is why I desire open my mind with your election. Not for Kerry, or against Bush.

[cabville]

  Why were the exit polls wrong and was there deliberate fraud in an attempt to create Kerry momentum and possibly depress Republican turnout as the election moved west.  That's the far more likely possibility if in fact fraud was involved that all.  It is far easier to tamper with exit poll results than it is to systemically alter election results throughout the nation.  Yet the conspiracy theories  From the left continue. . . .

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Is there any confirmation about this "early exit polls were 59% female" assertion?  The exit polls first posted on CNN's election site were much more favorable to Kerry than the final ones posted there now, but I don't remember them being anywhere close to 59% female. 

I don't know whether the exit polls were reweighted over the course of the night or the just added evening data, but the final exit polls conform pretty closely to the actual results.

[jimrtex]

For over twenty years there has been a steady increase in 'absentee/early' voting.

These votes are NOT counted in the exit polls.

Do you know the final percentage of 'absentee/early' voting respect to 2 november voting ?
And what advantage for Bush in 'absentee/early' voting could justify the exit polls/final results switch (from 51/48 to 48/51)?   
Thank you for your attention,

In Texas, early voting was 51.1% of the total votes cast for President.  The final result was about 1.5% more favorable for Kerry than the early voting, meaning that the election day voting overall was about 3% better for Kerry.  In all the counties I looked at, the Bush early vote was a larger percentage of his final vote, than was the Kerry early voting.

[freedomburns]

The truth is that I have very little faith in the voting process any more.  And I think that really sucks.


fb

[kelpie]

The truth is that I have very little faith in the voting process any more.  And I think that really sucks.


fb

Sounds like you have very little faith left in the people doing the voting.  And that really sucks.

[CARLHAYDEN]

For over twenty years there has been a steady increase in 'absentee/early' voting.

These votes are NOT counted in the exit polls.

Do you know the final percentage of 'absentee/early' voting respect to 2 november voting ?
And what advantage for Bush in 'absentee/early' voting could justify the exit polls/final results switch (from 51/48 to 48/51)?   
Thank you for your attention,

In Texas, early voting was 51.1% of the total votes cast for President.  The final result was about 1.5% more favorable for Kerry than the early voting, meaning that the election day voting overall was about 3% better for Kerry.  In all the counties I looked at, the Bush early vote was a larger percentage of his final vote, than was the Kerry early voting.

Thank you.

That's about what I expected.

[CARLHAYDEN]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

[Alcon]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

[Beet]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

Thats because it was. Would Republicans give a sh*t about pregnant women if it didn't help them on abortion? We all know why this law was passed.

[J. J.]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

Thats because it was. Would Republicans give a sh*t about pregnant women if it didn't help them on abortion? We all know why this law was passed.

I'm sorry, but where to get the idea of terminating a pregency without the pregent woman's consent (or by consent of guardian/next of kin) shouldn't be a criminal offense.  This doesn't exactly sound like a pro-choice position.

[Beet]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

Thats because it was. Would Republicans give a sh*t about pregnant women if it didn't help them on abortion? We all know why this law was passed.

I'm sorry, but where to get the idea of terminating a pregency without the pregent woman's consent (or by consent of guardian/next of kin) shouldn't be a criminal offense.  This doesn't exactly sound like a pro-choice position.

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

[J. J.]

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

I'm sorry, but you don't think it should be against the law for someone to do enough injury to a pregnant woman so that she loses the embryo/fetus/child that she is carrying and that there should be additional penalties for that?  This is same "political gain" that the law that says it is illegal to punch you in the nose has.

I'm not talking choice here; this isn't about the pregnent woman making a choice not to carry the potential child to full term.

[Beet]

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

this isn't about the pregnent woman making a choice not to carry the potential child to full term.

Actually it is. The difference between your nose-punching example is that there is not a large ideological movement dedicated to recognize noses as human beings.

[J. J.]

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

this isn't about the pregnent woman making a choice not to carry the potential child to full term.

Actually it is. The difference between your nose-punching example is that there is not a large ideological movement dedicated to recognize noses as human beings.

No it isn't.  Under your theory that this is "political" there isn't any gain to protect my nose, yet somehow a law that permits higher penalties for assault that causes damages becomes one.  This one was in responce to a tragic murder.

Again, we're not talking about choice.  In the case that inspired the proposed law, Lacy Peterson did not want her life ended or her pregency terminated.  It would be a very different argument if it was, but that's not the argument here.

It alway amazes me that whenever someone talks about regulations regarding pregency termination, it automatically becomes a some sort attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That is probably there to stay, but that doesn't mean the involuntary termination of a pregnency cannot be subject to legislation.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, how many people have been tragically murdered and have had their noses bashed in? Did Congress go and pass a law providing additional damages if the nose was bashed in during the murder? The truth is the Congress exploited the Laci Petersen case. It used her tragic murder to pass this law, which served its own ideological interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is disputing any of this, obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The truth is, if this law did not bring society closer to accepting the eventual overturn of Roe, if the status of the fetus was not such a huge ideological magnet, it never would have been passed. I am not saying it "cannot" be subject to legislation. All I am saying is that Congress's goal is to do everything it can to push the ideological pro-life position, and this bill was a product of that aim.

[J. J.]

In this case, is this a "bad" law.  We are not talking about preventing a woman from chosing if to end a pregency, we are talking about a situation where her choice is being limited.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think a strong democracy doesn't have fear of the truth. I hope someone can investigate it and assure that Bush victory is real, that America is now a full democracy.

Help the Democrats' credibility:  Do your part to spread the word that Bush stole yet another election!