Nov. 19, 2014
My Books
Reclaiming
Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of
Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
LINKS to Online Spreadsheets and Posts
Recent Election Fraud Posts
Nate Silver and Election Fraud
2014 Florida GovernorTrue
Vote Analysis
2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Analysis
Why Won't the National Election Pool Release
Unadjusted Exit Polls?
2004-2012 Election Forecast and 1968-2012 True Vote
Models
JFK Assassination
Recent Posts
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Warren Commission Apologists Comment on the Evidence
JFK: Confirming the London Sunday Times Actuary's
100,000 trillion to 1 Odds
JFK: Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?
Eyewitnesses: NO; Warren Commission: Yes
JFK: Oswald was “out with Bill Shelley in front”of the TSBD; Lovelady was on the steps
JFK: Judyth Baker's Pixel
Analysis of the Shirt Proves Oswald is Doorman
JFK: To Believe the Zapruder
film was not altered you must believe...
JFK: To Believe Oswald was not Doorman you must
believe...
JFK: Talking Points from the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation
JFK: Roger Craig, Will Fritz and Oswald
JFK: Mathematical proof that the Oswald backyard
photos were faked
JFK Calc: A Witness Spreadsheet Database
JFK Calc: Questions on
the Spreadsheet Analysis
JFK: Mathematical Proof
the Oswald Backyard Photos are Fakes
JFK Probability
Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses
JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson's
"Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone"
JFK Assassination Fritz Notes: Oswald said he was "out front with Bill Shelley"
JFK Witness Mortality: Key Statistics
JFK Assassination: Exposing an Admitted Lone Nutter
JFK Witness Mortality: Exposing the Tactics of an Internet Troll
JFK Assassination: Will the media ever ask the right questions?
The New JFK Calc Witness Spreadsheet: Absolute Numerical Proof of a Conspiracy
JFK Dealey Plaza Witnesses: John McAdams Strange List
JFK Dealey Plaza Witnesses: A Survey Comparison
JFK Assassination: Was Oswald Standing in the Doorway of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30?
JFK Math Analysis: Witness Testimony of the Time Interval Between Shots
JFK Assassination: Mathematical Proof of a Grassy Knoll Shooter
JFK Assassination: Mathematical Proof that the Zapruder film was Altered
JFK: A Closer Look at the Convenient Deaths of Warren Commission Witnesses
JFK Witness Deaths: Connections by Category
JFK Witness Deaths: Responding to Warren Commission Apologists
JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database: Cause of Death Statistics
JFK: The Evidence the Media Won't Talk About
JFK Witness Deaths: Graphical Proof of a Conspiracy
JFK Witness Deaths: Why Wikipedia, HDSCA, Bugliosi and Posner got it Wrong
JFK: REELZ’s Nonsensical "Smoking Gun", the Parkland Doctors and "Executive Action"
Exposing John McAdams: World-class Professor of JFK Disinformation
JFK Witness Deaths: 7 FBI Officials Due to Testify at HSCA
JFK Witness Unnatural Deaths: A Statistical Summary
To Believe That Oswald Killed JFK You Must Believe That...
JFK: "Parkland", Dr. Charles Crenshaw and "Executive Action"
JFK Witnesses Called to Testify: Actual vs. Expected Unnatural-Deaths (1964-1978)
JFK Calc: A Spreadsheet Database of Mysterious Witness Deaths
JFK Witness Death Probability Calculations: Data and Methodology
Hit List: An
In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of
Witnesses to the JFK Assassination
Executive Action: JFK Witness Deaths and the London Times Actuary
Conspiracy Theories and Mathematical Probabilities
How Many of the Following Must be True to Prove a JFK Conspiracy?
Reader comments to an LA Times article on a PBS JFK Special
Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud
JFK Assassination: A Probability Analysis of Unnatural Witness Deaths
JFK Witness Deaths: Calculating the Probabilities
JFK Assassination: Probability Analysis of Warren Commission Witness Unnatural Deaths
JFK Assassination Paradigm Shift: Deaths of Witnesses Called to Testify
Debunking a JFK Mysterious Witness Death Lone Nutter
Debunking John McAdams “Debunking” of Jim Marrs' JFK Witness List
Warren Commission Apologists and Trolls: Feeble Attempts to Debunk JFK Probability Analysis
JFK Mysterious Witness Deaths: London Sunday Times and the HSCA Cover-up
Exposing the Media and Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up
Richard E. Sprague: The Taking of America, 1-2-3
Probability Analysis: Latin American Leaders and Cancer
Interviews
Bob Fitrakis: http://talktainmentradio.com/podcasts/Fight%20Back%20%20120413.mp3
Jack Duffy: http://www.srbroadcasting.com/songs/jdshow10312013.mp3
Jim Fetzer: http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-charnin%20barrett.mp3
Election
Models and Unadjusted State and National Exit Polls
The True Vote
Model: A Mathematical Formulation
Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model
2012 Election Forecast
and True Vote Model
1988-2008 State and National True Vote Model
1988-2008
Election Database: Unadjusted State & National
Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote
1968-2012
Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model
1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model
Election
Fraud Analysis
Election Fraud
Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud:
An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”
Election Fraud:
Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for
Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
A Compendium of
Election Fraud Links
True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding the Election Fraud Factor: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Monte Carlo
Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast
Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on "False Recall"
Unadjusted Exit
Poll Probability Analysis Links
2012 Election
2012 Election
Fraud: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes
2012 Election
Fraud: Third-party Vote
2012 Election
Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof
2012 Late
Recorded Votes: Confirmation of the True Vote?
Final Presidential 2012 Forecast: Is there just ONE Pundit Who Considered the Fraud Factor?
2012 Forecast Model exactly matched Obama’s 332 Recorded EV...but his True EV was 370-380
Late Votes and
the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes
Why did the
Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
True Vote Model Scenarios: What will it take for Romney to win?
Comparing 2012
to 2008: Late Votes, Total Votes and 2008 Exit Polls
2012: Obama May Win the True Vote and Still Lose the Election
Oct. 31, 2013: JFK and Election Fraud, Jack Duffy
June 12, 2013: JFK Probabilities, Jim Fetzer
June 12, 2013: Real Deal, Jim Fetzer
Aug. 22, 2012: Fight Back, Bob Fitrakis
June 12, 2012: Green Power and Wellness, Harvey Wasserman, Bob Fitrakis
June 9, 2012: Fight Back, Bob Fitrakis
June 8, 2012: Progress Towards Democracy, Brian Stetten and Ruthann Amarteifio
May 2011: Jim Fetzer, Real Deal
May 26, 2011: Video Speech, Palm Beach County PDA
Bob Fitrakis: Interviews Wisconsin activists
Dennis Kern and John Washburn
MUST LISTEN:
Dr. James Fetzer interviews Dr. Bob Fitrakis
Can Current Technology Insure Fair Elections? (Steven Spoonamore
video)
The
Institutional Investor: Technology Raises Election Fraud Issues
Historical
Overview
Links to posts, models, statistical
analysis, exit poll timelines, articles and True Vote analysis tables follow
this summary.
I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the
recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Unlike the misinformation
spread in the media, voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures.
It’s the fault of the humans who program them.
In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the
average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012
Recursive National True Vote Model indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by
49.6-45.0% - a 7.5% margin discrepancy.
In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit
poll aggregate by 52-42% - but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8%
margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 126 of
274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the
occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126 which exceeded
the MoE, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The
probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (5E-106). That is scientific notation for
P= .000000000 000000000 000000000
000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000005.
The proof is in the 1988-2008
Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster,
statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the
calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can
blame them? Job security is everything.
Election forecasters, academics, political
scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the
statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic - beyond a
reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential,
congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit
polls and associated True Vote Models.
Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the
factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the
analytical evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election
forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the
content.
The bedrock of the evidence derives from
this undisputed fact: Final national and state exit polls are always forced to
match the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of
prior election voters and implausible vote shares. All demographic categories
are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit
polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The
research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and
represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.
It is often stated that exit polls were
very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the
recorded vote since. That is a misconception. The UNADJUSTED exit polls have
ALWAYS been accurate and closely matched the True Vote in 1988-2008. A comparison of ADJUSTED, PUBLISHED exit
polls in elections prior to 2004 and PRELIMINARY exit polls since then is like
comparing apples to oranges. The
adjusted, published exit polls have always exactly matched the fraudulent
RECORDED vote because they have been forced to do so. That's why they
APPEAR to have been accurate. The
RECORDED vote has deviated from the TRUE VOTE in EVERY election since 1968 –
always favoring the Republicans.
The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968
approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were
just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting
machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story.
The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who
were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.
In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But
approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24
battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by
50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines
were rigged for Bush.
In 1992,
In 1996,
In 2000, Al Gore won the 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted
state exit polls (58,000
respondents) indicated he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.
The True Vote Model had him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court
awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV).
In
In July 2004 I began posting weekly 2004 Election
Model projections
based on the state and national polls.
The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the
probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry
winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching
the unadjusted exit polls.
The Final 2004 National
Exit Poll was
mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million
returning Bush 2000 voters - but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only
48 million were alive in 2004.
Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the
number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million. The Final NEP implied that
there was an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters in 2004. The
post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living
2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a
1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million
and had 379 EV.
But there was much further
confirmation of a Kerry landslide. Consider
Final NEP adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs.
Bush had a 48% national approval rating in
the final 11 pre-election polls. But the Final NEP indicated that he had a 53%
rating – even though he had just 50% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted
aggregate. Given the 3% differential between the Final NEP and state exit poll
approval ratings, let’s deduct 3% from his 48% pre-election approval, giving
him a 45% vote share. That is a virtual match to the True Vote Model (which
Kerry won by 53.5-45.5%). The exit
pollsters inflated Bush’s final pre-election 48% average rating by 5% in the
Final NEP order to force a match to the recorded vote - and perpetuate the
fraud. Kerry’s 51.7% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate understated his
True Vote Model share. There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation ratio between
Bush‘s state approval and unadjusted exit poll share.
The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate
Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. As they
did in all demographic crosstabs, the pollsters had to force the Final National
Exit Poll to match the recorded vote; they needed to specify a bogus 37-37%
split. The correlation between state
Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93.
This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit
poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.
The Final 2006
National Exit Poll indicated that
the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture
56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.
In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his
recorded vote.
The 2008 Election
Model projection
exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9%
share (a 9.5 million margin). But the
model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely
voter (
The Final 2008
National Exit Poll was forced to
match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush
2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll
and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy
from the Final 2008 NEP. Another
anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third
party voters - but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded
third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22
million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted
state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).
In the 2010 Midterms, the statistical evidence indicates that
many elections for House, Senate and Governor were stolen.
The Wisconsin True
Vote Model contains worksheets for Senate, Governor,
Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why
it is likely that they were stolen.
In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote
margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012
Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral
vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model
projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled,
therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the state and national
unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2
million late votes by 59-37%, a confirmation that he was within 2% of his 2008
share.
Bob Fitrakis in The
Free Press: Wisconsin: None Dare Call it Vote Rigging
Daily Kos: The
Red-shift - Why it is Important
Daily Kos:
Wisconsin Recall Election Questions
Daily Kos:
Election Fraud: Exit Poll Probability Analysis
2000-2012 Presidential Vote Survey
2010 FL and OH Governor exit polls: forced to match the recorded vote
Wisconsin
Voices Newspaper Blog
Four Wisconsin
Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies
Walker Recall:
County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size
Probability of
Mixed Precinct/Ward Vote Discrepancies: Optical Scanners & Touch Screens
Walker Recall
True Vote Database Model: County, Municipal and Unit Ward
Walker Recall True Vote Model: Implausible Vote Shares required to Match the Recorded Vote
Walker Recall: The Exit Pollster’s MO Never Changes
Walker Recall: The Adjusted Final Exit Poll Was Forced to Match an Unlikely Recorded Vote
The Walker Recall: Is the Past Prologue?
True Vote Model Analysis: Walker Recall
2010-2011 Wisconsin: Senate, Governor, Supreme Court and Recall Elections
2011 Wisconsin
Recalls: Exit Polls and the True Vote Model
2011 Wisconsin
Supreme Court: True Vote Analysis
Analytical Election
Models/Databases (Google Doc spreadsheets)
2000-2012 Presidential Vote Survey
2012: Obama May Win the True Vote and Still Lose the Election
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding the Election Fraud Factor: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election
and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast
Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential State Exit Poll Aggregate: A 52-42% Democratic Margin
1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote
Model
1968-2008 Recursive National Presidential True Vote Model
2004-2008
County Presidential True Vote Model
2000-2004
County Presidential
True Vote Model
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2002 Senate
Midterms Probability Analysis
2004: True Vote
Model Sensitivity Analysis indicates Kerry had 53.6%- a 10 million vote
Landslide
2008:
Unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote Model indicate Obama had 58%- a 23
million vote margin
2010 FL, OH, PA,
WI, NJ Governor Elections: A True Vote Analysis
2010 PA, WI, IL
Senate Elections: A True Vote Analysis
2010-2011 Wisconsin: Senate, Governor, Supreme Court and Recall Elections
2011 Wisconsin
Recalls: Exit Polls and the True Vote Model
2011 Wisconsin
Supreme Court: True Vote Analysis
2012 Presidential True Vote Model Scenarios
2012: Obama May Win the True Vote and Still Lose the Election
An Introduction
to the True Vote Model
Using the Online True Vote Model
Statistical
Analysis
To Believe Bush Won in 2004, You
Must Believe...
To Believe Obama Won the Recorded Vote by 9.5 Million...
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
Kerry Won Ohio
and Florida: A True Vote Probability Analysis
How the Final
2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were Forced to Match the Recorded Vote
The Oregon
Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works
A Comparative
Statistical Analysis of Oregon's mail-in Voting System
Oregon Mail-in Ballots vs. New York Lever Machines / Central Tabulators
Early Voting on
Paper Ballots vs. Election Day Voting on Machines
Late Vote
Anomalies: 2000-2008
Debunking the Exit Poll Naysayers and Gatekeepers of
the Left
Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ (updated 4/9/12)
Exit Poll Response Optimization: closing the book on the “reluctant Bush
responder”
The unadjusted 2004 National
Exit Poll: closing the book on "False Recall"
False Premise: closing the book on “Swing vs. Red-shift”
An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not
Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking the
Mystery Pollster’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
A Reply to Howard Stanislevic's "Return to Innocence"
Calling Out the New York Lever Voting Shills
An Open Letter to Nate Silver
(Part 2)
Twenty-five
Questions for Nate Silver
A Reply to Nate Silver's “Ten
Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”
Zogby vs. Silver: 1996-2008 True
vs. Recorded Vote Pollster Rankings
Deleted: A
Comment on the Nate Silver / NY Times blog
An Open Letter to Markos Moulitsas
at Daily Kos
2008 Tracking Poll Volatility Analysis: R2K vs. Gallup
What the Pollsters and Pundits Won’t Tell You
Avoiding the Election Fraud Factor: The New Hampshire Primary
Myths and Disinformation
Swing vs. Red shift: 1992-2004
Swing vs. Red shift: Hoisted on its own Petard
A Conversation about False Recall
False Recall:
Hoisted on its own Petard
False Recall: Exposed by the Final National Exit Poll
Uncounted, Stuffed and
Switched Ballots
Required Turnout: The Phantom Bush Voter Society
2011
Recall Elections: An Exit
Poll, Recorded and True Vote Comparison
Will the Wisconsin Democratic
Recall Elections Be Stolen? A True Vote Analysis
Did the GOP Steal the Wisconsin Recall Elections? A True
Vote Analysis
Wisconsin Recall Election Projections
Wisconsin Supreme Court County Vote Analysis
2010 Midterms
House and Senate Forecasting
Model
Post-election Analysis: RV/ LV
Polls. Exit Polls and Recorded Votes
Governor True Vote
Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Jersey
Senate True Vote
Massachusetts: Coakley won the Hand Counts
2008
The Primaries:
Footprints of Election Fraud
Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
A Conversation
about the 2008 Election
Generic Poll Trend Forecasting
Model
2004
Nov. 4, 2004 - Democratic Underground: To Believe Bush Won...
Electoral Vote Forecasting: Monte Carlo Simulation
State Pre-election Polling Trend
A Conversation about
the 2004 Election
Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000
and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
2000/2004 Recorded State Votes by Voting Method
Exit Pollsters Edison - Mitofsky 2004 Evaluation Report
USCV: Ohio 2004 Precinct Exit Polls
Confirmation of
a Kerry Landslide
Introduction: To Believe Bush Won...
1. When Decided
3. The Final 5 Million Recorded Votes
4. The Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Vote
5. Within Precinct Discrepancy
6. New Voters
7. Party ID
8. Gender
9. Implausible Gore Voter Defection
10. Voter Turnout
11. Urban Legend
12. Location Size
15. Election Simulation Analysis
16. Exit Poll Response Optimization
17. Florida
18. Ohio
19. New York
Appendix
A. Election Model: Nov.1 Projection
B. Interactive Monte Carlo Simulation: Pre-election and Exit Polls
C. 1988-2004 Election Calculator: The True Vote
D. The 2000-2004 County Vote Database
E. Statistics and Probability: Mathematics of Polling
2000
2000 Unadjusted
Exit Polls Indicate a Gore Landslide
Miami-Herald: Gore won Florida by 46,000 votes!
Truthseekers
William Rivers Pitt: Worse than 2000: Tuesday's
Electoral Disaster
Keith Olbermann on 2004 Voting Irregularities
Ernest Partridge: Bush Wins Florida
- NOT
Bib Fitrakis: Missing Votes in
Ohio 2006 Midterms
Op Ed News interview: Bob Fitrakis on new evidence of the 2004 Ohio stolen election
Free Press: New court filing reveals how the 2004 Ohio presidential election was hacked
Michael Collins: The Urban Legend
Sheila Parks: 2011 Wisconsin
Uprising: The New Florida and Ohio?
Jonathan Simon,
Election Defense Alliance: Landslide Denied
Michael Keefer: Footprints of Electoral Fraud
Evidence of Fraud in the 2004 U.S.
Presidential Election: A Reader
The 2006 US Midterms: Another
Stolen Election?
The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio
Thom Hartmann: Evidence Mounts
that the Vote May Have Been Hacked
Steven F. Freeman: The
Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy
Hypotheses for Explaining the 2004 Presidential Exit Poll Discrepancy
Prof. John Allen Paulos: Final Tallies - Exit Polls: A Statistical Mystery
Robert Koehler: Silent Scream of The
Numbers
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Was the
2004 Election Stolen?
Mark Crispin Miller: None Dare
Call It Stolen
Some Might Call it Treason – An Open Letter to Salon
Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives;
Apologies; Ostriches; Revisiting the Biggest Story
Paul Lehto:
Presidential Vote Recount Rigging in Ohio
Evidence of Election Irregularities
in Snohomish County, WA
Ion Sancho, Leon Cty (FL) Supervisor of Elections: The Hursti
Hack
Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.:
Electronic Voting
Victoria Collier: A Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America
Diane Perlman: The Silence of the Scams:
Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud
__________________________________________________________________________
Miscellaneous
Roper Center (UConn) U.S. Elections Data: 1976-2008
The Bell Forum (formerly Progressive Independent)
Interactive 2004 Election Simulation
Monte Carlo 2004 Polling Simulation
Historical Voting Machine
Timeline
The 2004 Election Fraud Beginners Guide
Eye on Ohio: The Informed Citizen’s Guide to the
2004 Election
US Count Votes/National Election Data Archive
US Count Votes: History of the
Debate Surrounding the 2004 Presidential Election
DrDebug: http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/845
DUers byronius and autorank: http://www.truthisall.net/
2004 National Exit Poll
Timeline
This refutes the
myth that early exit polls were biased to Kerry. He led from 4pm with 51%
(8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%). The exit pollsters had to switch
approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force
the Final NEP to match the recorded vote. Given his 51.7% share of 125.7
million (Census) votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes.The True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and
won by 10 million.
11/02/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf
11/02/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents
Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf
11/03/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif
Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
Kerry 51.7%; Bush 47.0%
Data Source: Roper Center (UConn)
Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.6%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7
Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents (adjusted to match the recorded vote).
Bush 50.7%; Kerry 48.3%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf
The Final was forced to match recorded vote by switching 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush.
The average
within precinct discrepancy (WPD) was a nearly identical 6.5%.
The True Vote Model indicates that Kerry had 53.6%.
2008
Obama 58.0%; McCain 40.5%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1
Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 17836 respondents
Obama 61.0%; McCain 37.3%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1
Final National Exit Poll, 17836 respondents (adjusted to match the recorded vote).
Obama 52.9%; McCain 45.8%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
The True Vote Model indicates that Obama had 58%.
A Recursive True Vote Model (1968-2008)
12/17/09
In the first game of the 1954 World Series, Willie Mays made a miracle over-the-head catch. He implicitly calculated the mathematical trajectory of the ball at the crack of the bat using his built-in computer. Calculating the True Vote is more complex; the trajectory equation changes over time as the dynamics of the electorate change. The current election equation is a recursive function of the prior. It's all in the MATH.
Method 1: the Final NEP adjusts the mix to force a match to the recorded vote. This implicitly assumes that all elections, not just the current, are fraud-free. The process of matching to the official vote required millions of Bush phantom voters in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 (turnout exceeded 100%). The official vote counts cannot be correct.
Method 2: The mix is based on prior recorded votes and does not include millions of uncounted votes.
Method 3: (True Vote): The mix is based on total votes cast in the previous and current election.
Method 4 (Recursive True Vote): The problem of the Final National Exit Poll perpetuating endemic fraud is eliminated.
Starting with the 1968 election, the model sequentially derives a feasible returning vote mix. True vote shares cast in the previous election are reduced by voter mortality and turnout in the current election and new voters are added to the mix.
Except for the 2004 election, the model used Final National Exit Poll vote share. In 2004 the Final NEP vote shares were radically changed to match the official tally. Therefore, preliminary 12:22am NEP vote shares were used to calculate the True Vote.
The model indicates that two elections were definitely stolen (2000 and 2004) and probably two others (1968 and 1988) as well. In order to match the official vote, there had to be an average 94% turnout of returning Democrats and 106% of Republicans. The average Republican turnout was 114% when Nixon and Bush were the incumbents; it was 98% otherwise. The average True Vote discrepancy was 10.3% when Nixon and Bush were incumbents; it was 3.6% otherwise.
In 1968, Nixon won the official vote by 0.5m.
Humphrey won the True Vote by 2 million.
There were 6 million uncounted votes.
In 1972, Nixon won a 17 million landslide with 61.8% of the vote.
His True Vote share was 57%.
There were 9.5 million uncounted votes.
In 1976, Carter won the official vote by 1.7m.
He won the True Vote by 6 million with 53%.
There were 6.7 million uncounted votes.
In 1980, Reagan defeated Carter by 8 million votes.
There were 6.4 million uncounted votes.
In 1984, Reagan defeated Mondale by 17 million votes.
There were 9.2 million uncounted votes.
In 1988, Bush won the official vote by 7.0m.
Dukakis may have won a squeaker.
There were 10.6 million uncounted votes.
In 1992,
He won the True Vote by over 20 million.
There were 9.5 million uncounted votes.
Independent candidate Ross Perot had 19% of the recorded vote.
In 1996,
He won the True Vote by 16 million.
There were 8.7 million uncounted votes.
Independent candidate Ross Perot had 10% of the vote.
In 2000, Gore won the official vote by 0.54 million.
He won the True Vote by 4 million.
There were 5.4 million uncounted votes.
But he lost in Scotus by ONE vote.
In 2004, Bush won the official vote by 3.0m.
Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million.
The Final National Exit Poll forced a match to the recorded vote.
It had an impossible 43/37% Bush/Gore returning voter split.
There were 3.4 million net uncounted votes.
HAVA guess how many were stuffed or switched?
In 2008, Obama won the official vote by 9.5m.
He won the True Vote by over 20 million.
The Final National Exit Poll forced a match to the recorded vote.
It had an impossible 46/37% Bush/Kerry returning voter split.
Calculated Democratic Vote Shares (1968-2008)
Vote Share Discrepancies (1968-2008)
True Vote vs. Recorded Vote Margin (1968-2008)
In mathematical terms,
True Vote for candidate k in election i is
sum product of the mix and vote shares.
i = election index, where i=0,10 (1968 to 2008)
j = new and returning voter index (1= New, 2=Dem, 3=Rep, 4=Other)
k = share of new and returning voters (1=Dem, 2=Rep, 3=Other)
Mix (i,k) = new
and returning voter share (j) of election (i-1) total votes cast
NEP (i, j, k) = National Exit Poll (i) shares (k) of
new and returning voters (j)
TV (i, k) = ĺ Mix (i,
j)* NEP(i, j, k), j=1,4; k =1,3
1968-2008 Final National Exit Poll – forced to match the recorded
vote
|
Recorded
|
|
Final NEP Voter Mix |
|
|
Turnout required to match recorded
vote |
|||
|
Dem |
Rep |
DNV |
Dem |
Rep |
Other |
Dem |
Rep |
Other |
2008 |
52.9% |
45.6% |
13% |
37% |
46% |
4% |
87% |
103% |
451% |
2004 |
48.3% |
50.7% |
17% |
37% |
43% |
3% |
93% |
110% |
98% |
2000 |
48.4% |
47.9% |
18% |
41% |
33% |
8% |
96% |
93% |
92% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996 |
49.2% |
40.7% |
13% |
38% |
31% |
18% |
86% |
80% |
80% |
1992 |
43.0% |
37.4% |
18% |
28% |
53% |
1% |
74% |
119% |
85% |
1988 |
45.6% |
53.4% |
8% |
33% |
58% |
1% |
85% |
103% |
93% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1984 |
40.6% |
58.8% |
16% |
34% |
44% |
6% |
93% |
98% |
81% |
1980 |
41.0% |
50.7% |
16% |
42% |
41% |
1% |
94% |
95% |
59% |
1976 |
50.1% |
48.0% |
15% |
30% |
53% |
3% |
91% |
96% |
89% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1972 |
36.2% |
60.7% |
11% |
35% |
44% |
10% |
92% |
113% |
83% |
1968 |
42.9% |
43.6% |
20% |
49% |
31% |
- |
93% |
99% |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg |
45.30% |
48.90% |
14.50% |
35.50% |
44.60% |
5.40% |
89% |
101% |
121% |
(Forced to match recorded vote, impossible 103% Bush
and 452% third-party turnout of 2004 Election voters)
National |
2004 |
2004 |
|
2008 |
Vote Shares |
|
---Votes (000)--- |
|
||||
|
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Turnout |
Mix |
Obama |
McCain |
Other |
Obama |
McCain |
Other |
Turnout |
DNV |
- |
- |
- |
17,078 |
13% |
71% |
27% |
2% |
12,125 |
4,611 |
342 |
- |
Kerry |
62,158 |
59,028 |
56,077 |
48,607 |
37% |
89% |
9% |
2% |
43,260 |
4,375 |
972 |
86.7% |
Bush |
62,313 |
62,041 |
58,939 |
60,430 |
46% |
17% |
82% |
1% |
10,273 |
49,553 |
604 |
102.5% |
Other |
1,266 |
1,224 |
1,163 |
5,255 |
4% |
72% |
26% |
2% |
3,783 |
1,366 |
105 |
451.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEP |
125,737 |
122,294 |
116,179 |
131,370 |
100% |
52.86% |
45.60% |
1.54% |
69,442 |
59,905 |
2,023 |
98.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
365 EV |
52.87% |
45.62% |
1.51% |
69,457 |
59,935 |
1,978 |
131,370 |
2008 True Vote Model
(Feasible 97% turnout of 2004 Election voters)
National |
2004 |
2004 |
|
2008 |
Vote shares |
|
---Votes (000)--- |
|
||||
|
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Turnout |
Mix |
Obama |
McCain |
Other |
Obama |
McCain |
Other |
Turnout |
DNV |
- |
- |
- |
16,441 |
12.4% |
71% |
27% |
2% |
11,673 |
4,439 |
329 |
- |
Kerry |
67,370 |
59,028 |
64,001 |
62,081 |
46.9% |
89% |
9% |
2% |
55,252 |
5,587 |
1,242 |
97.0% |
Bush |
56,657 |
62,041 |
53,824 |
52,210 |
39.5% |
17% |
82% |
1% |
8,876 |
42,812 |
522 |
97.0% |
Other |
1,710 |
1,224 |
1,625 |
1,576 |
1.2% |
72% |
26% |
2% |
1,135 |
410 |
32 |
97.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
125,737 |
122,294 |
119,450 |
132,308 |
100% |
58.15% |
40.25% |
1.61% |
76,936 |
53,248 |
2,124 |
97.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Recorded |
365 EV |
52.87% |
45.62% |
1.51% |
69,457 |
59,935 |
1,978 |
131,370 |
Recorded |
48.268% |
50.731% |
1.001% |
Discrepancy |
- |
5.28% |
-5.38% |
0.10% |
7,479 |
(6,687) |
146 |
|
The True Vote calculations used the same Final 2008 National Exit Poll
vote shares that were forced to match the recorded vote.
So there can be no argument there.
The 103% turnout of living 2004 Bush voters as indicated in the Final
2008 NEP was impossible.
So there can be no argument there.
The 5.25 million returning 2004 third-party voters as indicated in the
Final 2008 NEP was impossible.
So there can be no argument there.
Impossible 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%) returning voter turnout was
replaced by feasible 98% and 97% rates.
So there can be no argument there.
Final 2004 National Exit Poll - forced to
match recorded vote
(Impossible 110% turnout of Bush 2000 voters and
final vote share adjustments)
National |
2000 |
2000 |
|
2004 |
Vote shares |
|
---Votes (000)--- |
|
||||
|
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Turnout |
Mix |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Turnout |
DNV |
- |
- |
- |
20,790
|
17% |
54% |
44% |
2% |
11,227 |
9,148 |
416 |
- |
Gore |
55,436
|
51,004
|
48,454
|
45,249
|
37% |
90% |
10% |
0% |
40,724 |
4,525 |
0 |
93.4% |
Bush |
51,376
|
50,460
|
47,937
|
52,586
|
43% |
9% |
91% |
0% |
4,733 |
47,853 |
0 |
109.7% |
Other |
4,160
|
3,953
|
3,756
|
3,669
|
3% |
64% |
14% |
22% |
2,348 |
514 |
807 |
97.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEP |
110,973 |
105,417 |
100,147 |
122,294 |
100.0% |
48.27% |
50.73% |
1.00% |
59,031 |
62,039 |
1,223 |
101.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
252
EV |
48.27% |
50.73% |
1.00% |
59,028 |
62,041
|
1,224
|
122,294
|
2004 True Vote Model
(
National |
2000 |
2000 |
|
2004 |
Vote Shares |
|
---Votes (000)--- |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Turnout |
Mix |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Turnout |
||||||||||||||
DNV |
- |
- |
- |
22,421 |
17.8% |
57% |
41% |
2% |
12,780 |
9,193 |
448 |
- |
||||||||||||||
Gore |
55,997 |
51,004 |
53,197 |
52,133 |
41.5% |
91% |
9% |
0% |
47,441 |
4,692 |
0 |
98.0% |
||||||||||||||
Bush |
50,870 |
50,460 |
48,327 |
47,360 |
37.7% |
10% |
90% |
0% |
4,736 |
42,624 |
0 |
98.0% |
||||||||||||||
Other |
4,106 |
3,953 |
3,901 |
3,823 |
3.0% |
64% |
14% |
22% |
2,447 |
535 |
841 |
98.0% |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
True |
110,973 |
105,417 |
105,424 |
125,737 |
100.0% |
53.61% |
45.37% |
1.03% |
67,404 |
57,044 |
1,289 |
98.0% |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
2000 |
Gore |
Bush |
Other |
Recorded |
252 EV |
48.27% |
50.73% |
1.00% |
59,028 |
62,041 |
1,224 |
122,294 |
||||||||||||||
Recorded |
48.38% |
47.87% |
3.75% |
Discrepancy |
- |
5.34% |
-5.36% |
0.02% |
8,375 |
(4,997) |
65 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
National |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
2000 |
Method: |
|
|
|
|
|
Turnout in 2004 |
Unctd
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Cast |
Recorded |
Unctd |
Alive |
Cast |
Recorded |
Unctd |
Died |
Gore |
Bush |
Gore |
Bush |
Other |
|
||||||||||||
|
110.8 |
105.4 |
5.4 |
105.3 |
125.7 |
122.3 |
3.4 |
6.1 |
98% |
98% |
75% |
24% |
1% |
|
||||||||||||
|
- |
95.1% |
4.9% |
95.0% |
- |
97.3% |
2.7% |
5.0% |
- |
- |
0% |
100% |
- |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
National |
Vote (mil) |
|
|
Vote Share (%) |
Vote (mil) |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
MoE |
2000 |
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Turnout |
Pct |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Kerry |
Bush |
Other |
Turnout |
|
||||||||||||
1.7% |
DNV |
- |
- |
- |
22.42 |
17.8 |
57.0 |
41.0 |
2.0 |
12.78 |
9.19 |
0.45 |
|
|
||||||||||||
1.0% |
Gore |
56.00 |
51.00 |
53.20 |
52.13 |
41.5 |
91.0 |
9.0 |
0.0 |
47.44 |
4.69 |
0.00 |
98% |
|
||||||||||||
1.0% |
Bush |
50.87 |
50.46 |
48.33 |
47.36 |
37.7 |
10.0 |
90.0 |
0.0 |
4.74 |
42.62 |
0.00 |
98% |
|
||||||||||||
1.7% |
Other |
4.11 |
3.95 |
3.90 |
3.82 |
3.0 |
64.0 |
14.0 |
22.0 |
2.45 |
0.54 |
0.84 |
98% |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
True |
110.97 |
105.42 |
105.42 |
125.74 |
National |
53.61 |
45.37 |
1.03 |
67.40 |
57.04 |
1.29 |
125.74 |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
State Model |
53.65 |
45.35 |
1.00 |
67.46 |
57.02 |
1.26 |
125.74 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Electoral Vote |
370 |
168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
2000 |
Gore |
Bush |
Other |
Recorded Vote |
48.27 |
50.73 |
1.00 |
59.03 |
62.04 |
1.22 |
122.29 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Recorded |
48.38 |
47.87 |
3.75 |
True – Recorded |
5.34 |
(5.36) |
0.02 |
8.38 |
(5.00) |
0.06 |
3.44 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Cast |
49.95 |
46.30 |
3.75 |
Exit Poll |
51.97 |
47.08 |
0.95 |
63.55 |
57.58 |
1.17 |
122.29 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Exit Poll |
49.39 |
46.86 |
3.75 |
True – Exit Poll |
1.64 |
(1.71) |
0.07 |
3.85 |
(0.53) |
0.12 |
3.44 |
|
|||||||||||||
Sensitivity Analysis (changes to base case) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush |
|
Gore voter turnout |
|
|
Share of |
Kerry Share of DNV |
|
|
Share of |
Kerry Share of Gore |
|
|
Gore |
|
Kerry share of DNV |
|
||||||||||
|
turnout |
90% |
92% |
94% |
96% |
98% |
|
Bush |
55% |
56% |
57% |
58% |
59% |
|
Bush |
89% |
90% |
91% |
92% |
93% |
|
turnout |
55% |
56% |
57% |
58% |
59% |
|
|
|
Kerry Share (%) |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Share (%) |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Share (%) |
|
|
|
|
Kerry share (%) |
|
||||||||
|
90% |
53.9 |
54.2 |
54.5 |
54.8 |
55.1 |
|
12% |
54.0 |
54.2 |
54.4 |
54.6 |
54.7 |
|
12% |
53.6 |
54.0 |
54.4 |
54.8 |
55.2 |
|
98% |
53.3 |
53.5 |
53.6 |
53.8 |
54.0 |
|
92% |
53.5 |
53.8 |
54.1 |
54.4 |
54.7 |
|
11% |
53.6 |
53.8 |
54.0 |
54.2 |
54.4 |
|
11% |
53.2 |
53.6 |
54.0 |
54.4 |
54.8 |
|
96% |
53.0 |
53.2 |
53.3 |
53.5 |
53.7 |
|
94% |
53.2 |
53.5 |
53.8 |
54.1 |
54.3 |
|
10% |
53.3 |
53.5 |
53.6 |
53.8 |
54.0 |
|
10% |
52.8 |
53.2 |
53.6 |
54.0 |
54.5 |
|
94% |
52.7 |
52.9 |
53.1 |
53.2 |
53.4 |
|
96% |
52.8 |
53.1 |
53.4 |
53.7 |
54.0 |
|
9% |
52.9 |
53.1 |
53.3 |
53.4 |
53.6 |
|
9% |
52.4 |
52.8 |
53.3 |
53.7 |
54.1 |
|
92% |
52.4 |
52.6 |
52.8 |
53.0 |
53.2 |
|
98% |
52.5 |
52.8 |
53.1 |
53.3 |
53.6 |
|
8% |
52.5 |
52.7 |
52.9 |
53.1 |
53.2 |
|
8% |
52.0 |
52.5 |
52.9 |
53.3 |
53.7 |
|
90% |
52.1 |
52.3 |
52.5 |
52.7 |
52.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry Margin (mil.) |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Margin (mil.) |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Margin (mil.) |
|
|
|
|
Kerry margin (mil.) |
|
||||||||
|
90% |
11.2 |
11.9 |
12.6 |
13.3 |
14.0 |
|
12% |
11.4 |
11.9 |
12.3 |
12.8 |
13.2 |
|
12% |
10.2 |
11.3 |
12.3 |
13.4 |
14.4 |
|
98% |
9.5 |
10.0 |
10.4 |
10.9 |
11.3 |
|
92% |
10.3 |
11.0 |
11.7 |
12.4 |
13.1 |
|
11% |
10.5 |
10.9 |
11.4 |
11.8 |
12.3 |
|
11% |
9.3 |
10.3 |
11.4 |
12.4 |
13.5 |
|
96% |
8.8 |
9.3 |
9.7 |
10.2 |
10.7 |
|
94% |
9.4 |
10.1 |
10.8 |
11.5 |
12.2 |
|
10% |
9.5 |
10.0 |
10.4 |
10.9 |
11.3 |
|
10% |
8.3 |
9.4 |
10.4 |
11.5 |
12.5 |
|
94% |
8.0 |
8.5 |
9.0 |
9.5 |
10.0 |
|
96% |
8.5 |
9.2 |
9.9 |
10.6 |
11.3 |
|
9% |
8.6 |
9.0 |
9.5 |
9.9 |
10.4 |
|
9% |
7.4 |
8.4 |
9.5 |
10.5 |
11.6 |
|
92% |
7.3 |
7.8 |
8.3 |
8.8 |
9.3 |
|
98% |
7.6 |
8.3 |
9.0 |
9.7 |
10.4 |
|
8% |
7.6 |
8.1 |
8.5 |
9.0 |
9.4 |
|
8% |
6.5 |
7.5 |
8.5 |
9.6 |
10.6 |
|
90% |
6.6 |
7.1 |
7.6 |
8.2 |
8.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry Electoral Vote |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Electoral Vote |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Electoral Vote |
|
|
|
|
Kerry Electoral Vote |
|
||||||||
|
90% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
380 |
400 |
|
12% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
391 |
400 |
|
12% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
400 |
400 |
|
98% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
92% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
391 |
|
11% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
380 |
|
11% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
400 |
|
96% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
94% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
10% |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
10% |
357 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
94% |
340 |
346 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
96% |
340 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
9% |
346 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
9% |
340 |
357 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
92% |
340 |
340 |
340 |
370 |
370 |
|
98% |
340 |
340 |
370 |
370 |
370 |
|
8% |
340 |
340 |
346 |
370 |
370 |
|
8% |
340 |
340 |
346 |
370 |
370 |
|
90% |
325 |
340 |
340 |
340 |
357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MoE |
1.04% |
0.94% |
0.82% |
0.68% |
0.49% |
|
MoE |
1.72% |
1.72% |
1.72% |
1.71% |
1.70% |
|
MoE |
1.08% |
1.04% |
0.99% |
0.94% |
0.88% |
|
MoE |
1.72% |
1.72% |
1.72% |
1.71% |
1.70% |
2000
Gore was running coming off a prior
It was the most outrageous election theft in
history-until 2004.
2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Method:
Final NEP Forced to Match |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
95% |
96% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Voted |
|
Voter |
2000 |
National Exit Poll |
|
Voter % |
|
|
1996 |
1996 |
1996 |
2000 |
2000 |
|
Turnout |
Mix |
Gore |
Bush |
Other |
Turnout |
DNV |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
DNV |
19.0 |
18% |
52% |
43% |
5% |
- |
|
49.2% |
54.0 |
47.4 |
45.0 |
43.2 |
|
43.2 |
41 |
82 |
15 |
3 |
96 |
Dole |
40.7% |
41.2 |
39.2 |
37.2 |
35.7 |
Dole |
34.8 |
33 |
7 |
91 |
2 |
93 |
Perot |
10.1% |
9.9 |
9.7 |
9.2 |
8.8 |
Perot |
8.4 |
8 |
39 |
49 |
12 |
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margin |
Total |
|
105.0 |
96.3 |
91.5 |
87.8 |
Total |
105.42 |
Share |
48.4% |
47.8% |
3.8% |
0.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote |
51.0 |
50.4 |
4.0 |
0.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
Share |
48.4% |
47.9% |
3.8% |
0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote |
105.4 |
51.0 |
50.5 |
4.0 |
0.5 |
2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Method: True Vote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
95% |
96% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True Vote |
Cast |
Recorded |
Alive |
Voted |
|
Voter |
2000 |
National Exit Poll |
|
Voter % |
|
|
1996 |
1996 |
1996 |
2000 |
2000 |
|
Turnout |
Mix |
Gore |
Bush |
Other |
Turnout |
DNV |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
DNV |
15.1 |
14% |
52% |
43% |
5% |
- |
|
53.4% |
56.1 |
47.4 |
53.3 |
51.1 |
|
51.1 |
46 |
82 |
15 |
3 |
96 |
Dole |
37.1% |
38.9 |
39.2 |
37.0 |
35.5 |
Dole |
35.5 |
32 |
7 |
91 |
2 |
96 |
Perot |
9.5% |
10.0 |
9.7 |
9.5 |
9.1 |
Perot |
9.1 |
8 |
39 |
49 |
12 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margin |
Total |
|
105.0 |
96.3 |
99.8 |
95.8 |
Total |
110.83 |
Share |
50.3% |
46.0% |
3.7% |
4.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote |
55.8 |
50.9 |
4.1 |
4.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
Share |
48.4% |
47.9% |
3.8% |
0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote |
105.4 |
51.0 |
50.5 |
4.0 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Error |
-3.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dole |
|
|
|
|
|
Share of |
|
Share of DNV |
|
|
||
Turnout |
90% |
92% |
94% |
96% |
98% |
|
Dole |
50% |
51% |
52% |
53% |
54% |
|
|
Gore Share |
|
|
|
|
|
Gore Share |
|
|
||
90% |
50.4% |
50.7% |
51.0% |
51.2% |
51.5% |
|
9% |
50.7% |
50.9% |
51.0% |
51.1% |
51.3% |
92% |
50.1% |
50.4% |
50.7% |
50.9% |
51.2% |
|
8% |
50.4% |
50.5% |
50.7% |
50.8% |
50.9% |
94% |
49.8% |
50.1% |
50.4% |
50.6% |
50.9% |
|
7% |
50.1% |
50.2% |
50.3% |
50.5% |
50.6% |
96% |
49.5% |
49.8% |
50.1% |
50.3% |
50.6% |
|
6% |
49.8% |
49.9% |
50.0% |
50.2% |
50.3% |
98% |
49.2% |
49.5% |
49.8% |
50.0% |
50.3% |
|
5% |
49.4% |
49.6% |
49.7% |
49.8% |
50.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gore Margin |
|
|
|
|
|
Gore Margin |
|
|
||
90% |
5.1 |
5.7 |
6.3 |
6.9 |
7.5 |
|
9% |
5.3 |
5.4 |
5.6 |
5.7 |
5.9 |
92% |
4.4 |
5.0 |
5.6 |
6.2 |
6.9 |
|
8% |
4.9 |
5.1 |
5.2 |
5.4 |
5.5 |
94% |
3.7 |
4.3 |
4.9 |
5.5 |
6.2 |
|
7% |
4.6 |
4.7 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
5.2 |
96% |
3.0 |
3.6 |
4.2 |
4.9 |
5.5 |
|
6% |
4.2 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
4.7 |
4.8 |
98% |
2.3 |
2.9 |
3.6 |
4.2 |
4.8 |
|
5% |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
4.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|