PDA

View Full Version : Don't shoot the messenger?



RBA
03-31-2005, 07:42 AM
Looks like a different opinion between the "experts". So someone else suggested in another thread, you can't just except certain experts who agree with you and automatically rule out a group of experts who don't support your case.

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf



March 31, 2005


Authors and Endorsers:

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. Temple University Statistics Department


Kathy Dopp, MS mathematics, USCountVotes, President


Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Organizational Dynamics,

University of Pennsylvania


Brian Joiner, Ph.D. Professor of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of

Wisconsin


Frank Stenger, Ph.D. Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah


Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame


Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University


Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University


Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist

University


Jonathan Simon, J.D. Alliance for Democracy


Ron Baiman, Ph.D. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago


Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes, Vice President


Abstract


What is the Main Cause of the Discrepancies between the Official Election Results and

the Exit Polls?


The exit pollster of record for the 2004 election was the Edison/Mitofsky1 consortium. Their

national poll results projected a Kerry victory by 3.0%, whereas the official count had Bush

winning by 2.5%.2 The probability that the national exit poll results would be as different as they

were from the national popular vote by random chance is less than 1 in 959,0003 and cannot be

attributed to chance.

Edison/Mitofsky disavowed the results of their own poll, saying that the data cannot be construed

as evidence that the official vote count was corrupted, and hypothesized that Kerry voters were

more amenable to completing the poll questionnaire than Bush voters.

However, Edison/Mitofsky's own exit poll data does not support their theory that a higher exit

poll response rate by Kerry voters accounted for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the

presidential election results. Using Edison/Mitofsky’s data tables we demonstrate that the

“reluctant Bush responder” hypothesis is implausible because it is inconsistent with the

combination of high response rates and high discrepancy rates among the precincts with the

highest percentage for Bush.


There are Three Primary Explanations for the Discrepancies:


1. Statistical Sampling Error – or Chance


We agree with Edison/Mitofsky that the first possible cause, random statistical sampling error,

can be ruled out.


2. Inaccurate Exit Polls


This is the theory that Edison/Mitofsky put forth. They hypothesize that the reason the exit polls

were so biased towards Kerry was because Bush voters were more reluctant to respond to exit

polls than Kerry voters. Edison/Mitofsky did not come close to justifying this position, however,

even though they have access to the raw, unadjusted, precinct-specific data set. The data that

Edison/Mitofsky did offer in their report show how implausible this theory is.


3. Inaccurate Election Results


Edison/Mitofsky did not even consider this hypothesis, and thus made no effort to contradict it.

Some of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data may be construed as affirmative evidence for

inaccurate election results. We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters’ intent was not

accurately recorded or counted cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation.

more at link above

RBA
03-31-2005, 07:53 AM
Please stay on topic. There is doubt in my mind. If you want to flame me for that, go right ahead. But I have to err on the official count. I really can't believe that one party would go to this certain extremes to steal an election.

CbusRed
03-31-2005, 07:54 AM
Please stay on topic. There is doubt in my mind. If you want to flame me for that, go right ahead. But I have to err on the official count. I really can't believe that one party would go to this certain extremes to steal an election.

stop replying to your own posts. ;)

CbusRed
03-31-2005, 07:55 AM
and also, stop telling us what to do! :thumbdown

traderumor
03-31-2005, 07:55 AM
:laugh:

RedFanAlways1966
03-31-2005, 07:59 AM
Poll (definition): A survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information

* Polls do not ask everyone who votes. Everyone who votes may be asked, but do not have to answer. Therefore, polls will never be 100% accurate.
* Seeing as there is no way they can be 100% accurate, a close election may cause the person they deem to be the winner to be wrong.

I am the type that would tell a pollster, "No thanks." Voting is a private thing and I choose not to tell an unknown person any of this information. I vote on my way to work and I do not have the time to answer quetsions from a total stranger nor would I if I had time. NOYB... none of your business. If 10% of voters feel the same as me, then how accurate can a poll really be? Could 10% of this nation's voters have changed the election one way or another? I think so. A take the results of polls with a grain of salt.

Soemthing that does not seem to need a bunch of stat-head college profs to determine IMO. But I hate to use logic! :)

RBA
03-31-2005, 07:59 AM
Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.

CbusRed
03-31-2005, 08:01 AM
Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.

how did you assume something was said?

919191
03-31-2005, 08:12 AM
Please stay on topic. There is doubt in my mind. If you want to flame me for that, go right ahead. But I have to err on the official count. I really can't believe that one party would go to this certain extremes to steal an election.
Not only do I think one party would, I think there are 2 that would.

RBA
03-31-2005, 08:54 AM
Not only do I think one party would, I think there are 2 that would.

Well, maybe. But the party as a whole wouldn't do it. Do you think that a small number of key people could throw an election. I guess with no uniform standards of voting machine, anything is possible.

919191
03-31-2005, 08:57 AM
Scary how a national election could be hijacked, or just plain in error. Either way.

Red Heeler
03-31-2005, 04:26 PM
Poll (definition): A survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information

* Polls do not ask everyone who votes. Everyone who votes may be asked, but do not have to answer. Therefore, polls will never be 100% accurate.
* Seeing as there is no way they can be 100% accurate, a close election may cause the person they deem to be the winner to be wrong.

Soemthing that does not seem to need a bunch of stat-head college profs to determine IMO. But I hate to use logic!

Scientific testing is based on random sampling, not testing an entire population. Statistical analysis of a random sampling is not 100% accurate, but it is darn close when done properly.

What this article points out is that the polls were more inaccurate than would be predicted by random chance. Of course, there are a lot of variables which could have caused the polls to be inaccurate.