Why Mitofsky/Edison Where Wrong (Exit Polls)

[Nbadan]

Breaking News: According to Non-Partisan USCV Study, "The Possibility That the Overall Vote Count Was Substantially Corrupted Must Be Taken Seriously"
By ADVOCATE STAFF

"We invite all those who care about democratic processes in this country to join us in fully investigating and explaining what really happened in the 2004 Presidential election."

Who does this sound like to you?

Cliff Arnebeck? Bob Fitrakis? Some other progressive activist?

John Kerry? Ted Kennedy? Some other person with much to gain from the overturning of the 2004 presidential election?

Open your eyes, America.

There is disorder in your house.

And it is found not in the speculation of agitators, as some have told you; or in the theories of lunatics, as some have posited; but in the analysis and wisdom of the nation's brightest and most articulate citizens, who speak to you now in the plainest terms to say that a wrong has been perpetrated upon you and must not be allowed to stand.

That wrong is a presidential election whose final result cannot be verified by any academic of competent science and sound credentials.

And while you may despise academics their comfortable living and easy authority, their wisdom does not come without price: these are Americans who have devoted their lives to science, to the pursuit of truth and to the furtherance of accuracy and integrity in the national discourse.

And they have doubts.

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics at Temple University, has doubts.

So does Brian Joiner, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics at the University of Wisconsin.

The same goes for Frank Stenger, Ph.D. (University of Utah); Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D. (University of Notre Dame); Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. (Cornell University); Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. (Case Western Reserve University); and Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. (Southern Methodist University).

And the same goes for countless professors of statistics and mathematics the nation over.

It seems no one who has made an effort to do so can adequately explain, in scientific, rational, or even merely logical terms, how it is that George W. Bush came to be President of the United States for a second term. His Presidency, in short, defies all of the available mathematical data.

His is the Unexplained Presidency.

And remember that Mitofsky/Edison Media report the mainstream media trumpeted a week or two ago in an effort to explain away this current Unexplained Presidency?

It was bunk.

Here's the proof, from a non-partisan Report by United States Count Votes, of which organization all of the above professors and academics are members:

"Mitofsky/Edison say in their Executive Summary (p. 3), 'Exit polls do not support allegations of fraud...' -- but they do not consider the hypothesis of election fraud";

"The report proposes to explain the Within Precinct Error [Rates of the exit-polling] with the following statement (p. 31): 'While we cannot measure the completion rate by Democratic and Republican voters, hypothetical completion rates of 56% among Kerry voters and 50% among Bush voters overall would account for the entire Within Precinct Error that we observed in 2004.'....[but] no data in the report supports the hypothesis that Kerry voters were more likely than Bush voters to cooperate with pollsters, and the data suggests that the opposite may have been true....in precincts with higher numbers of Bush voters, response rates were slightly higher than in precincts with higher number of Kerry voters";

"Seven of fifty states have 't' values less than –2.7, meaning that each of them had less than a 1% probability of having the reported difference between exit polls and election results occurring by chance. The binomial probability that 7 of 50 should be so skewed is less than one in 10,000,000";

"The [Edison/Mitofsky] analysis of the potential correlation of exit poll errors with voting machine type is incomplete and inadequate, and their report ignores the alternative hypothesis that the official election results could have been corrupted"; and

"we suggest that the [Edison/Mitofsky] investigation extend to the official vote count tallies."

So wake up, America.

And not just you "blue" Americans, but you "red" Americans, too -- those hundreds of thousands and tens of millions of you whose commitment to integrity and civic duty predates this Unexplained Presidency.

There are things which are true which you haven't seen on television.

And not all of the things you do see on television are as real as they appear: do we have an elected President in the White House, or someone whose presence there is entirely unexplainable by scientific means? Have we fallen so far from a love of science and progress that we can accept on faith an election which cannot be explained by science? Do we now elect our national leaders on faith, rather than at the polling place and in the ballot-box?

The jury, in fact, is still out.

Nashuaadvocate

[Useruser666]

Dan you are totally full of . You go on and on about the exit polls proving how the ACTUAL VOTE was fraudulent, then when the ACTUAL PEOPLE who conducted those polls come back with very reasonable cir stances for their inaccuracy, those people are now wrong. When someone agrees with you, they're right. When someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong.

The funny thing about all of this is your basic inability to understand what the is going on here. The exit-polling is not an exact count of the votes. It is an ESTIMATE, GUESS, or PROJECTION of the actual vote. There are NO polls that determine an election. Polls are used by the MEDIA and others to see what is happening during voting. It is absolutely ridiculous to argue that the polls are right and the election totals are wrong. Never mind the fact that the the numbers were not that far off either. It's not as though the polls PROJECTED Kerry with 80% and Bush with 20%. If Bush lost, and even conceded like Kerry has, I'm sure I wouldn't be in here shoveling all this BS around.