Our broken system: Flawed exit polling and vote suppression.

ToqueDeVille has come to the conclusion after reading Simon and Baiman's (S&B's) latest paper that there was indeed fraud. Reading his diary along with Mystery Pollster and georgia10's diaries has helped me to form a bigger picture of the puzzle. In short, I am now skeptical that Bush really won the election on November 2nd.

Until after the 2000 elections, nobody ever took a good hard look at how our elections were conducted. From 1980 until 1996, all the elections were one-sided for one candidate or the other. Therefore, nobody noticed that Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia were taking over the voting machine market or that Teresa LaPore was designing her notorious Butterfly Ballot until it was too late. This kind of scrutiny of our election process is long overdue.

The numbers given by S&B are enough to alert people that something is wrong, but it is up to us to determine the WHAT. There are three possibilities to take into account:
1.    Random chance;
2.    Vote suppression and/or fraud;
3.    Exit polling flaws.

Many Fundamentalist writers love to use code to "prove" that the Bible is God's word. Paul Crouch has written a recent book supposedly proving that ELS sequencing "revealing" prophecies for current events has only a 1 in a million chance of being attributable to random chance. However; Skeptical Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/bibcode.html) has debunked this by pointing out that Moby Dick and even a book promoting biblical code has sequencing, including "prophecies" about the assassination of  several 20th-century world leaders. So the mere fact that random chance is small in S&B's case does not rule out a random result of Bush winning by the margin that he did. It is for us to determine the what.

However, the presence of very strong evidence for #2 and #3 does rule out random chance as a factor. In the days shortly after the election, many fraud diaries were repetitive, leading me to believe that people here were in a state of denial and that the furor would die out once time passed.

But in the last month and a half, the case for vote suppression and fraud has gotten strong enough that John Conyers and Maxine Waters on the congressional side will definitely object to the electoral vote. In addition, they report that as many as three senators (whom they didn't name) may object on the senatorial side.

The evidence that convinced me is the over 38,000 Verified Voting eyewitness accounts of missing voter rolls, long lines, and voter intimidation. And how many more voters gave up in disgust and didn't report the problems they had with the process? 380,000? This is similar to rape in which many more rapes go unreported than get reported.

In addition, many eyewitnesses at the Election Protection hearings told about how machines registered votes for Bush instead of Kerry, more machines were placed in GOP precincts than in Democratic precincts, and how Triad people were seen working on the machines. Given the fact that Blackwell ran the Bush campaign in Ohio and Triad has a long history of supporting the GOP, how can they be trusted? This diary would be too long if I mentioned every graphic detail, but georgia10, ToqueDeVille, and others have raised the standard of quality of the Ohio/Florida diaries immensely.

However, I am still troubled that many people still have a faith-based reliance on the exit polls. S&B's weakest point in their paper is when they make appeals to authority in defense of Edison and Mitofsky, referring to their many awards and vast experience. But Dan Rather and his 30 years of experience was not a cover for his sloppy journalism in the TANG scandal. Edison and Mitofsky's vast experience and awards are no defense for sloppy work in exit polling.

Many people here know me as the resident skeptic for refusing to accept voter suppression and fraud allegations that were not backed by strong evidence. But this is not one of these efforts. I am suggesting that there are problems with the exit polling in addition to all the vote suppression and fraud going on. The more I look at this, the more I conclude that this system is even more broken than ToqueDeville does.

For starters, I am extremely troubled that Edison and Mitofsky continue to refuse to release the raw data documenting their work on election day. As so many people have pointed out, exit polls are our last line of defense against fraud. If these people are as reliable as everyone says they are, then why don't they release their work so we can evaluate it for ourselves? If they did such a good job, then what do they have to hide?

S&B write: Election 2004 presented a particular challenge and opportunity for Mr. Mitofsky, whose exit polling operation was hampered in 2002 by a massive computer breakdown. It has been reported that preparations for Election 2004 were especially thorough, entailing increased staff numbers and training, upgraded computer hardware and software, expanded surveys of absentee and early voters, and dry runs beginning in July to prepare analysts for the full spectrum of possible election night scenarios. It may
fairly be said that the exit polling for Election 2004 was a more advanced, sophisticated,
and meticulous operation than any previously undertaken.

But Mystery Pollster (http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman_pap.html) reports that the interviewers had no proper training; just a one-day session over the phone. He writes:

It is true that exit polls have no problem identifying "likely voters," but they trade that problem for a huge set of logistical challenges. The national exit polls hire 1500 interviewers for just one day of work every two years and deploy them to randomly chosen precincts nationwide. Telephone surveys can train and supervise interviewers in a central facility. No such luck for exit polls. They depend on interviewers with relatively little prior experience or training. The year, in fact, NEP conducted most of its interviewer training by telephone.

So, given the fact that almost all the exit poll workers were inexperienced, it is totally reasonable to contend that the exit polling is flawed. S&B writes that Edison and Mitofsky prepared long and hard for November second to avoid a repeat of November 2nd. However, the 1500 exit pollsters, who had little or no experience in exit polling and little or no sense of loyalty to the company, were the ones doing the actual work. And sloppy work leads to sloppy results.

Also, S&B dismiss the possibility of non-response bias by saying there is no supporting evidence. However, Mystery Pollster (http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman_pap.html) cites a Pew Research Center study which concluded that more Republicans think the media is biased towards Democrats than vice versa. In addition, Mystery Pollster points out that exit pollsters wore logos of all the major media outlets to identify themselves. So, given this fact, it is a totally reasonable hypothesis to assert that non-response bias skewed the results in favor of the Democrats.

The fact that the discrepancy between Bush's margin of victory and the exit poll data is so large (662,000 to 1 odds against the discrepancy being attributed to random chance) suggests that more factors are in play than just vote suppression and fraud like S&B suggest or just exit poll flaws as Mystery Pollster suggests. I think both scenarios are true. Neither scenario given as a possibility for the exit poll discrepancies excludes the other from occurring.

The fact that the exit polls are so flawed is just as troubling as the vote suppression and fraud that has occurred. The exit polling methods need to be fixed before the next election. If they don't get fixed, I can see a scenario where the Democrats win in 2008, but the Republicans scream fraud because the exit polling was off yet again. Or, the flawed exit polls could match the results in 2008, but the GOP could hack the voting machines undetected because of our faith-based reliance on exit polls. Only when we subject the exit polls to the same scrutiny that we are currently subjecting the Ohio process can we ensure that every vote will count in 2008.

•  Tip jar.

  by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 10:33:44 PM PDT

•  I appreciate this diary

  But:

  The fact that the chances against a Bush victory by the margin that he won by was so large (662,000 to 1)

  Sadly, that's an excellent example for how Freeman's and S&B's papers are consistently misinterpreted. They're not saying that the chance that Bush's margin really was what the tabulation says it was is 662,000 to 1 (or whatever) - they're saying that the chance that the discrepancy between that supposed margin and the exit polls being a matter of random chance is 662,000 to 1 (or whatever). And there's a world of difference between these two claims.

  by brainwave on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 11:04:00 PM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    Mistake fixed.

    by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 11:17:52 PM PDT

    •  From all

      the diaries I have read about this topic on kos, and from a large number of the comments to those diaries, I think a rather large number of us agree that WE DON'T KNOW.  But how are we ever going to know if we aren't allowed to look into every credible suggestion and possible evidence that things in this election just don't add up or look right or feel right?

      We seem to have a lot of anecdotal evidence of something amiss.  We do not know exactly what, or how or by whom.  We just really, really would like the opportunity to see the proof that we are wrong, not just continually be told to get over it, we lost, move on.

      What will come of it all?  We don't know.  But if we can get some assurance that voting in this country is legitimate and a reasonable facsimile of an honest expression of voter intent then we will be okay.  Otherwise, none of the other stuff we do matters.  If it is rigged by either side, then we have no democracy.

      by shirlstars on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 11:42:10 PM PDT

•  Watch out for the next move

  John Ellis "Jeb" Bush will be leading the delegation to help with the tsunami aid.  He'll be leading it with Powell at his side.  John is preparing to run for president.  He said he won't, but also that  when his term ends in 2006 he'll start making plans.  The Chair of the RNC includes John as a candidate in 2008.  And now John is being elevated as a representative of the US in the world's largest natural disaster.  We'll know he's running for president when we see the eyes water.  Watch out - this is the next big fight and we should start as soon as we know what happens on Jan 6.

  by Liberation Learning on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 11:52:25 PM PDT

•  Felony Disenfranchisement

  This is an issue I follow closely, but I can't stomach a statement like this:

  So my response to anybody who claims that Bush won fair and square is that anybody can win if 5 million people on the other side can't vote.

  This assume many things, the most damaging of which is the last:

  
  
  • It assumes that all of these people would have voted (only 60% of the rest of the population did)

  • It assumes that they all would have voted for Kerry, which is obviously absurd.

  • Most importantly, it assumes the Democrats have not, in large numbers, been complicit with felony disenfranchisement. Only two states allow prisoners to vote. Thirteen states bar felons from lifetime voting. All of these states, except Arizona, have been under complete Democratic control when these laws were on the books. While it is obvious that felony disenfranchisement helps Republicans (at least now), claiming that only Republicans are behind it is simply wrong.

  We are just as much to blame as Republicans when it comes to this. That is something we need to own up to.

  by Chris Bowers on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 02:02:58 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for pointing this out.

    I didn't know that 12 out of the 13 states that disenfranchise felons were under Democratic control. I deleted the references to 5 million voters.

    Since a disproportionate number of these voters are minorities, they would be likely to vote Democratic. So, I still think the Democrats are hurting their chances by not pushing for enfranchisement of people who have done their time.

    Also, many of the 90,000 people disenfranchised in Florida are not felons. This sort of thing makes me wonder if closet racism is alive and well in Florida.

    Since you are very familiar with this issue, you might want to do a diary on this. Our goal here at kos is to make sure every vote counts and this issue has not been addressed enough. That's why I brought this issue up.

    by Eternal Hope on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:20:46 AM PDT

•  correction - voter suppression can't

  have played a role in the discrepancy between the official count and the exit polls--at least not if the exit pollsters were doing their jobs, since they were only supposed to poll people who had actually voted.  Thus people who left without voting because of long lines, weren't registered, were on felons lists, etc. shouldn't have been included in the exit polls.

  If (and I say if) the exit polls were right and the official count wrong, it's because of fraud/spoilage, not suppression.

  by Hprof on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:26:40 AM PDT

  •  Spoilage:

    Spoilage is a definite possibility in places like Ohio. Many Democratic precincts in Cleveland had over a 3% spoilage rate while hardly any GOP sites did.

    by Eternal Hope on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:09:13 AM PDT

    •  agreed about spoilage

      I highlighted suppression because it's in your diary title.

      Since posting the above, I read and participated in an exchange on Tocqueville's diary about how suppression might have factored--if not in the collection of data--then in the weighting of that data.  See:

      http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/12/30/223723/91/277#277

      by Hprof on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:14:24 AM PDT