By now all of you have heard that the biggest fluster-muck of the MSM's coverage of the election was the pathetic accuracy of the exit polls. Since I have some first hand information on how the process worked, at least in this part of my little state, let me share some quick thoughts.
Some in the blogosphere are calling this a conspiracy of sorts. That the numbers were deliberately cooked. Others say the numbers weren't deliberately pro-Kerry, but that their early release was part of a plan to depress Republican voter turnout in Western states. For instance, over at Powerline:
David is right, and I have some evidence to back that up.
As most of you know, I blog from my desk at a small university somewhere in the vast hinterland of America. From my earlier posts on the subject, you know that my university is just as liberal as Berkeley or any other campus (in my department 9 full-time faculty voted Kerry, 2 for Bush, 1 did not vote, and 1 declined to state). So, why is this relevant? Because all those who ran the exit polls were students and the students were recruited by faculty members.
Two weeks or so before the election I received a phone call from a colleague on the English faculty. She had been contacted by one of the firms that had been subcontracted to conduct the exit polling for the Associated Press. They wanted her to recruit three students to do exit polling in the local vicinity and as many students as she could get to travel to nearby counties. Why is this relevant? Because she is a junior English instructor. If the firm had simply looked up our university in the phone book I would think they would contact me--the senior member of the political science faculty and the specialist in American government. They did not. So why did they contact her? No idea. However, I will note that she is an activist in the Democratic Party, an open Kerry supporter, and involved in many liberal causes.
Later, I learned the firm contacted one other faculty member to recruit students--the director of Social Work. If you do not know what Social Work students are like think of a typical lefty student stereotype, add a dash of love for all things Great Society, and throw in more than a spoonful of feelings of entitlement and there you go. The firm recruited all of their workers to conduct polling from among this group.
All of the polling in 1/8 of our state was done by Social Work students. All of it. My state, if you must know, was said to be 'too close too call' according to the exit-polling data. In actuality, Bush won by 10 points.
If the exit polls were conducted by students all across the country, I suspect that we may have one of the reasons why the initial data turned out to be so wrong. Students, generally, are more liberal in college than when they get out into the real world. Further, if the type of student recruited at my university was repeated across the country then we have an even bigger problem. The firm contacted two very liberal professors (even more liberal than the rest), who in turn asked their favorite students if they wanted a chance to make some cash.
From there it is not hard to figure out why the numbers would be so skewed, even if the students did not deliberately do it. You see, each of us has a natural tendency to feel more comfortable talking with some type of people over others. If I was to conduct an exit poll, I would feel quite comfortable talking to a guy in a cowboy hat. On the other hand, a guy wearing a Che shirt and Birks might be somewhat out of my comfort zone. Not that I wouldn't talk to any Che shirt guys, just not as many. If my bias is repeated over and over, by hundreds and by thousands of poll workers, than this bias becomes substantial when the numbers are aggregated.
This explains why the data were wrong. Students, possibly a lot of very liberal students, were hired for a day to run the exit polls. They tended to oversample other liberals--not in a huge way but enough to make a difference. These data were then turned over to the experts who aggregated them and then reported bad data to the major news outlets.
Two questions remain. First, why was it that a well known liberal and the head of a department renound for indoctrinating liberalism into it's students were contacted to recruit students? It may just be a coincidence, but I fail to see the logic in it. Second, why were the misleading data leaked out? Our explanation, thus far, only suggests why the data were bad. It does not explain why these data were leaked out. There may be no connection. It only takes one excited Kerry supported to call Wonkette and Sullivan and then let the 'good news' pick up steam from there.
Just a few thoughts. Many questions remain.
1
"Students, generally, are more liberal in college than when they get out into the real world."
Is this why, a day or so before the election, you told your students not to vote? Because, as you say, they're likely more liberal? And, if more liberal, likely to be that much more of an obstacle for getting the GOP re-elected?
Please clarify. Were you telling your students not to vote because you knew how they'd likely vote (i.e. probably Democrat), though likely gave them some other bullshit reason not to?
Posted by: Venom at November 05, 2004 01:59 PM (dbxVM)
2
Dear God, man! Bush won and now we're talking about this, on a conservative site none the less. Liberal sites spin the election count one way and Conservative sites spin their data another way.
Holy shit! Bush won, lets get on with our lives.
Posted by: LMAO at November 05, 2004 03:42 PM (p5xDI)
3
bad samples by liberal bias? not likely.
More likely the exit polls were right and the diebold machines with no paper trail gave the election to diebold's favored candidate, George Bush.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 05, 2004 04:39 PM (ursvs)
4
Someone needs to take off their tinfoil hat and pop another lithium.
Posted by: Ricky V at November 05, 2004 06:14 PM (AHaCg)
5
Upon further investigation there seems to be a correlation between paper balloting and exit polling being very similiar but computer balloting and exit polling being dissimilar, always in favor of Bush. We do know for a fact that diebold compoany is pro-republican, their programming is not privy to public eyes. I am not saying that there is proof as of yet of fraud, but statiticians can make models of voting irregularities and find if there is fraud.
i doubt "liberal students" caused massive sampling error by bias. anyone who utilizes quantitative research, especially those who make a living by it try very hard to make sampling procedures valid and reliable.
it is not a great leap to assume that if Bush inc believes in power politics that they will commit crimes to maintain that power. Remember, realpolitik is about power...there in no crime in this realm unless you get caught and can be punished by others. Bush Inc does believe they are above the will of being punished ...by anyone.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 05, 2004 07:06 PM (ursvs)
6
Will aluminum foil work instead? I don't think tin foil has existed since 1948.
What you really need is a raincoat and umbrella, because what it is is a bullshit monsoon.
Posted by: Mr. K at November 05, 2004 08:21 PM (5ZElc)
7
Ernie is making me laugh. No...really...he is. I'm laughing.
Posted by: Jeremy at November 05, 2004 09:52 PM (/U19w)
8
Methinks Ernie's been listening way too much to Moonbat Central Radio.
Posted by: SAHMmy at November 05, 2004 10:07 PM (wdeq0)
9
My understanding is that exit polls were very accurate in some states. Why the disparity?
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 05, 2004 10:44 PM (FSKXR)
10
P.S. See my post on this...
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 05, 2004 11:12 PM (FSKXR)
11
Plausible, and if accurate rather comical in a way. Liberals can recognize bias easily, right? Reminds me of a seminar I sat in on as an undergraduate student. The researcher was touting his company's new test for "good" cholesterol. During the presentation he mentioned his employees (read "fellow researchers") had provided the samples used in his test group. During the Q & A, I queried him on this (to make sure I had heard it correctly) and then politely suggested the data could be inaccurate as a result of researcher bias. This didn't go over well with him (after all, he wouldn't bias his own research, right?), but it did with other students & some faculty in attendance who had a more objective view. Thanks for the insight.
Posted by: DaveC at November 05, 2004 11:19 PM (RDq/O)
12
Ernie should share whatever he's taking.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 06, 2004 06:48 AM (t/n9o)
13
I don't think so, greyrooster. Some things are nice to share, but paranoia isn't one of them.
Posted by: BarCodeKing at November 06, 2004 07:43 AM (l35ua)
14
Yo, Rusty... not to sound bitter or anything, but if you blow me off this time I'll lose all faith in humanity and the just organization of the universe (ok, I don't have much faith in the latter anyway).
Seriously, take a look at my
last post. I do believe it severely undermines your explanation.
To tell you the truth, I very much hope that the appearance of vote manipulation among electronic ballots is pure hogwash. But there are some troubling numbers that need to be explained.
von Nostrand out.
Posted by: Professor Peter von Nostrand at November 06, 2004 10:22 AM (FSKXR)
15
PVN - the lastest employment stats show that you were not blown off at all regarding "Kerry's Biggest Lie". Anyway you want to spin it, it looks like there will be a net gain in jobs since 2001.
It is you who should issue a retraction.
Posted by: Mr. K at November 06, 2004 11:29 AM (xQLFT)
16
Ernie,
the point is you can share what you feel.
We are not going to cut off your head.
Whether it has anything to do with the truth or not is neither here or there.
Just be thankfull that you live in a democracy
and stop being such a sore loser.
Posted by: sopotamia at November 06, 2004 12:34 PM (GA+CB)
17
Smokin' analysis: comes closest to any others I've read so far in terms of explaining the exit poll fiasco, or conspiracy, (depending on how you frame it.) I'll post it on my blog.
Posted by: rocco at November 07, 2004 12:59 AM (DEja9)
18
One minor criticism: Given the fact that most of the state exit polls were way off base, I think you're illogical in concluding that relatively small biases caused the large cumulative inaccuracies in these polls.
Posted by: rocco at November 07, 2004 01:27 AM (DEja9)
19
I'd also like to know a bit more about the electronic voting. As some of us know, the CEO of one of the major electronic voting companies, Diebold Inc., has been a major Bush fundraiser and campaign organizer, and said in a confidential August 2003 campaign memo that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president."
We already know Diebold is sleazy. Not long ago they secretly collaborated with an advocacy group for the blind. They said they'd donate to the group if the group promised to sue states that don't use electronic voting -- complain the states discriminate against the blind (even though tactile voting cards, etc. work perfectly well and are a lot cheaper).
I haven't researched this much, but some have said that the exit polls were quite accurate in many states, and less accurate in states with electronic voting. In some states the exit polling was dead-on, whereas in others it was off by more than 5 percent. When it was wrong, the actual vote inevitably favored the president. There are two possible explanations. One, the exit polling was wrong, and two, the actual vote counting was wrong, and the second possibility is a lot more disconcerting; if I were you, I wouldn't probe so deeply into this one.
The voting systems for Diebold in particular are terribly designed, and relatively easy to hack from either the inside or the outside for someone who has even a vague clue about computers. If you know there's a difference between RAM and the hard drive, you probably have a decent shot. Their security is so weak they actually had a lot of their key files stored on a publicly-accessible FTP site until fairly recently.
I'm only throwing this out as a response to what you're throwing out -- implying there might be some sort of shenanigans with the exit polls. What I'm MORE concerned about is that there could have been some sort of shenanigans with the ACTUAL VOTING. Some people this year were certainly desperate enough -- I have NO DOUBT -- to try to pull something. I'm not saying anyone did; I'm speculating, just like you did in your blog post.
What's the most likely explanation? That the exit polling was wrong. And there are reasons to believe this is the case. But the other possibility is just a little greater than I wish it was, because the system is so flawed.
p.s. I also don't trust Jeb. In 2000 he made plenty of "mistakes" down there as governor of Florida with regard to voting, and they always seemed to favor his brother, oddly enough. The Bush's have such extensive political connections they have the power to manipulate some things behind the scenes if they want to. And Jeb seems completely devoted to helping his brother. This isn't an allegation. It's just an observation. I always hope for clean elections, and I'd like to think everyone else does too, but I know some people on both sides care more about winning than about anything else. I don't even think it matters whether manipulations took place. I think it's wrong for people who are so partisan to be in charge of setting up the election systems. Jeb does indeed have the power to pull strings to change the system a bit to favor his brother, and he has certainly done this on a few occasions, though he's not the only one.
In Ohio, the official in charge of overseeing all aspects of voting is a devoted Bush supporter and like Katherine Harris in 2000, a Republican with political ambitions. At one point he'd reportedly told White House chief of staff Andy Card that not enough provisional ballots would be available in the state. He knew a Republican strategy would be to challenge voters in Democratic precincts, so that they'd require provisional ballots. And the point isn't whether or not it happened. The point is he HAD THE POWER. (And what else might he have done, knowing all the ins and outs of the system? All the loopholes, all the ways to affect the outcome.)
I think in the end, this is like the court system. It not only needs to be fair, it needs to have THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS, so that people will have faith in it. Anyone who thinks Katherine Harris was concerned about fairness needs to have their head checked. Our election system is still desperately in need of an overhaul, but we've done little to set this in motion. How can a guy win the presidency by 500 votes, as in 2000, and there not be a recount? If I'm running for head of the neighborhood beautification committee, for God's sake, I can ask for a recount. Our system is messed up, and it needs a total overhaul. I don't know whether shenanigans occurred this year. I just know enough about the system to know that shenanigans are far too easy to pull off, and that very partisan people are in charge of some very important positions having to do with elections. Both sides have tried to pull tricks, but since Bush has won twice, most of us are most interested the ones that might have favored Bush.
Posted by: hold on a sec at November 07, 2004 04:33 AM (ASZ8c)
20
PETER VON NOSTRIL: Don't you realize by now that no one reads your posts. Read one, read them all. The reason you're on this blog is that no one is on yours.
On exit polls. Bunch of nonsense. Should be outlawed. Waste of money. MY POINT BASED ON WHAT I OBSERVED AT MY POLLING STATION.
Ask a normal looking, well dressed person. 65% Bush, 35% Kerry.
Ask a person wearing a ball cap & driving a nice pickup truck. 100% Bush.
Ask a black woman 100% Kerry.
Ask a black man 90% Kerry. 10% Bush.
Ask a red neck with a dirty pickup truck. Budweiser 70%, Miller lite 25%. George Wallace 5%.
IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK. Too easily manipulated.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 07, 2004 07:56 AM (JDP+5)
21
what total bullshit. give it up already, and focus on finding a candidate and a theme for the nexte election...or on second thought, hang on to your Michael Moore-esque conspiracy theories, and keep running off serious minded moderate voters.
Posted by: Mr. K at November 07, 2004 07:59 AM (XtcU7)
22
ERNIE: Please continue. Nothing better than a good laugh on Sunday morning. Uh ho! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are doomed!
Posted by: greyrooster at November 07, 2004 08:01 AM (JDP+5)
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 07, 2004 11:11 AM (FSKXR)
24
Hold On A Sec
ardon me,only I'm losing the will to live here!I hate to be the bringer of bad news but - Boring!Boring!Boring
I'd jump right off of Brooklyn Bridge right about now, only it's a bit too far to walk.Your comment has completely worn me out!Excuse me while I just slit my wrists instead wont you.Jesus, what do you do for an encore?Shit, how can you even be bothered to type that stuff.Take up fishing can't you or even bird watching, anything that involves you chiefly being in your own company,or be a monk in isolation somewhere,yeah thats the ticket,you'l be alone, nobody bothering you, or you bothering them.Just think of it at least.You'l be happy,so will we.Oh what a perfect world it would then be.
Save us.I'm out of here!
Posted by: sopotamia at November 07, 2004 11:30 AM (7BYCG)
25
Exit Polling should be illegal. It supports nothing except partisan Bullshitting prior to the real election results, and can be used as a method to sway voters farther west in the later time zones by either party. It should be stopped . . period!
And Ernie? Get some help!
Posted by: large at November 07, 2004 12:37 PM (VRK2g)
26
Personally I think it was caused by the VRWC, who told all their members to claim to be Kerry voters on the way out, in order to make sure all the Bush supporters would get out and vote.
See, I can do conspiracy theories too!
Posted by: Kathy K at November 07, 2004 06:03 PM (yuWLp)
27
It is funny, you see conspiracy in polling yet I know not many of you understand probability theory. Exit polling should be the most accurate polling type, given that people are polled upon leaving the election site. You should read a book and figure out the demands of random sampling and the assumptions that can be made about a population from ransom sampling.
In short for the american retards though, watch your dollar crash bovine idiot nation. Fascism isnt patriotic fools.
my presidnt talks to jesus! hahahah welcome to hell stupids
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 07, 2004 09:44 PM (ursvs)
28
wow, you are seriously kookoo for coacoa puffs
Posted by: rumcrook at November 07, 2004 10:19 PM (fLlQ8)
29
Give enough time and true colors come out. The piss ant ERNIES did. Just what I said he was all along. Just another jealous America hater.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 03:30 AM (BFaxF)
30
He doesn't even have a color...he is transparent..he is NOTHING.
Posted by: Laura at November 08, 2004 07:57 AM (ptOpl)
31
Dick Morris from an article in The Hill: "Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state. So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries."
so, after a bush victory in which the exit polls are wrong he naturally assumes that the exit polls were faulty, not the vote count. please. had the polls been favoring bush in a kerry victory he would be screaming foul at the top of his lungs.
please understand that this issue has implications larger than this election. elections should be fair and the process should be transperant and verifiable. at the moment there is evidence that places the fairness of certain machines in doubt. the producers of these machines do not have to show their programming code to anyone outside of their own company. with e-voting there is no paper trail, meaning results are not verifiable. if we are going to invest so much time and money into our elections, shouldn't we take the time to scrutinize the voting process and spend money to ensure its accuracy?
as far as i am concerned, the question Thom Hartman (commondreams.org) asks is a valid one: "Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes? "
you can begin your pesonal attacks now.
Posted by: lg at November 08, 2004 10:45 AM (VquLJ)
32
Okay! Once again I ask. Do you have a better way? Bitch, Bitch. No ideas, No solutions. If you consider this a personal attack. So be it. I just believe if you're going to complain suggest a better way.
Even Kerry said he had a plan. He just didn't say what it was. So, now he's unemployed. Which is usually what happens to those without a plan.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 01:48 PM (aq8Ok)
33
Lg: Paper trail. At my polling location there is a paper trail. We go to a booth insert our card. Punch out our choice. Then we place the card into a big box and return the top portion to the attendant. There are 4 or 5 people present to ensure
(1) You are at the correct polling station.
(2) You only get one card
(3) You are on the list of registered voters.
(4) That there is no cheating by the attendants.
and they checked your registration card and ID.
Now what is the problem. How could it get any better?
Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 01:59 PM (aq8Ok)
34
dear greyrooster,
i was simply pointing out that our voting system may need to be overhauled, and should be thoroughly scrutinized.
perhaps we could go to a system that prints out a voter's selections for confirmation, then is kept in case of a request for a recount. how about making the software of these machines accesible to a third party regulator. Maybe these machines can be developed, owned, and operated by the states in which they are used, not by private companies. Perhaps more exit polling should be done to help verify vote counts (as they do in third world countries). i would also like to see conflicts of interest, as in the diebold case, treated more seriously and perhaps regulated.
please note: before there can be a solution to a problem, the problem must first be identified. therefore, when someone points out a problem, it does not mean they are "bitching".
Posted by: lg at November 08, 2004 02:15 PM (VquLJ)
35
there are many different types of voting machines. some of the e-voting machines have no paper trail at all.
regarding the dick morris quote, exit poll numbers are used to verify the quality of vote counts in other parts of the globe. if they are so accurate, why then are we writing off the fact that the polls in the US were strangely wrong this year? it is easy to say the polls were wrong, but sometimes the easy answer is not always the right answer.
Posted by: lg at November 08, 2004 02:22 PM (VquLJ)
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 08, 2004 02:28 PM (62QDG)
37
VEMON: How about everybody punch 3 different machines. One observed by Republicans, one by Democrats, and one by a neutral party. Now I ask you. Who is neutral and how do we know he's neutral. However, if the 3 machines differ. We could do the whole election over.
Or it can be done by Social Security #. But then big brother would know. But on the good side you could sell your vote for big bucks. Which is what I would do. I tired of electing the best of the worst.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 05:40 PM (aq8Ok)
38
Ernie has a point. Its those damned Diebolds. We need to reverse the result in the state where they were used most widely... California.
Posted by: Neal at November 09, 2004 01:38 AM (PRN2J)
39
ok rusty. you say the liberal students messed up the exit polls. i say the op-scan central tabulation machines in florida messed up the count. why don't we settle this thing with some random sampling?
all kinds of companies do some sort of quality assurance, why not the voting industry? let's randomly pick some of the counties in florida that used these particular machines and do a manual recount. since these machines (it is actually the software that is in question) were used in smaller counties, a quality assurance test would be fairly quick and inexpensive. isn't proving democracy worked worth a little time and money?
Posted by: lg at November 09, 2004 10:14 AM (iAojr)
40
Political paranoia strikes again!
Posted by: Laura at November 09, 2004 11:23 AM (ptOpl)
41
lg:
As much as I love ad hominem personal attacks, I'll resist just this one time.
You live in the Florida panhandle and they love to register Democrat and vote Republican.
Ann Coulter has an article on just this very subject.
http://www.anncoulter.org/
Look up how your county voted in 2000 back when they had the old voting machines, and I bet you will find that it is within 5%-10% of 2004.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 11, 2004 06:30 AM (TkP9t)
42
I got about halfway through this blog entry and decided to abandon it. I find your arguments unconvincing, your methods unscientific, and your opinions transparently partisan.
Don't bother to respond, I'll never be back.
Posted by: anon at March 17, 2005 02:29 PM (JHXnR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
