Response to Howard Stanislevic’s “Watching and Waiting for a Return to Innocence”

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Updated Jan. 21, 2011

This is a response to Howard Stanislevic’s recent post, Watching and Waiting for a Return to Innocence. I have included New York State recorded vote by county for the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections along with the 2004 state exit poll timeline.

HS

It has not escaped our attention, or that of our readers, that our last post was over a year ago, when it first became evident that New Yorkers would lose their voting system and have it replaced by a software-based system that our legal system is incapable of regulating. We called that post "The End of Innocence" and it covered quite a lot of ground.

RC

“Our legal system is incapable of regulating”. What are you saying, Howard? That the legal system is corrupt? Then why don’t you focus on the corruption, rather than shill incessantly for a return to lever machines? Yes, the 100 year history of lever machines was truly the “Age of Innocence”: New York voters were innocent of the fact that votes cast on levers were tabulated by corrupt humans and rigged computers .

HS
There hasn't been a need to post anything more since then; we would just be repeating ourselves. We've met with the powers that be in both houses of the State Legislature responsible for making election law, and they have taken our suggestions under advisement. No laws have been passed to verify election results. But we've seen lots of interest in the National Popular Vote (NPV), Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and other practically unverifiable voting methods. Even Internet voting!

RC

That is commendable, but what makes you think that NY politicians were ever for fair elections?

HS

Perhaps in light of the state's highest court's Dec. 20th denial of a hand count in the NY State Senate District 7 race in which computers -- rather than voters -- determined which party will control the Senate, it's time for a quick review of how we got here.

RC

Computers don’t decide anything; humans do. You need to change “computers” to “election officials”.

HS

New York has become the Florida of the Northeast when it comes to elections, or perhaps worse since we don't even attempt to count thousands of undervotes reported by the ballot scanners. Our new machines don't even warn voters of the effect of casting overvotes, which Florida has corrected after their unfortunate 2008 experience.

RC

So you are concerned about election officials not doing their jobs to hand count the paper ballots produced by optical scanners. You could never accuse them of not counting the paper ballots produced by mechanical levers - there weren’t any ballots to count.

HS

There is plenty of blame to go around so we've tried to summarize it for your convenience as we keep watching and waiting for a Return to Innocence. Those who are responsible for our current situation know who they are, although they may be in denial about it.

Here's what happened:
1. New York has a history of paper ballot fraud (Tammany Hall) which lever machines were effectively designed to prevent. We don't trust PEOPLE or PAPER unless they can be watched. We do trust machines that can be locked against tampering, observed when opened, and that work on simple observable mechanical principles such as gravity and that can't switch votes during elections the way software can. They are part of a voting system and a legal system designed to prevent fraud. Reinventing that system to deal with computers is a lot harder than most people think. In fact, it's never been done!

2. Over the last several years, our public officials have heard very little from New York's precinct-count optical scanner (PCOS) advocates and "good-government" groups about the need for software-independent elections (software-independent voting systems are only the beginning!). The opinions of National Institute of Standards and Technology experts and other computer scientists about the need not to trust software, the ineffectiveness of the "certification" of software, BUGS in New York's actual voting system software, etc. have never been widely disseminated except in testimony to a few legislative committee members by people such as us and a few election officials, and on Internet mailing lists and blogs not read by the general public. We're sorry to say there are very few of us making the case against allowing computers to "decide" election results. We are unfunded and practically alone. Compared to the push for Instant Runoff Voting, National Popular Vote, and even PCOS itself, we are voices in the proverbial wilderness. And that's a shame.

3. The same lack of informed consent applies to the so-called manual auditing of elections counted by computers, which is the only way to restore some trust and the NYS-constitutionally required bipartisan administration of elections (that explicitly includes vote-counting). That constitutional requirement has been undermined by the use of vote-counting software. But almost no one wants to hand-count more than 3% of the vote. Counting substantially more than this means the machines were a waste of money. No one wants to hear this after spending $50 million on them, plus the recurring costs of ownership which will be much more over time. One notable exception is Columbia County in which, prior to the elections, both election commissioners agreed to conduct 100% hand counts. Before an election is the best time to make such an agreement since partisan disputes over winners and losers of contests will not arise. You can read more about that good news here, thanks to Commissioner Virginia Martin.

RC

Waiting for a return to innocence? You mean waiting for unverifiable levers? Just who is in denial?

“New York has a history of paper ballot fraud”. Once again, we get to your true agenda: you don’t trust paper ballots, but you love those mechanical levers. Howard, how quickly you forget: New York votes were CAST on levers but COUNTED on central tabulators. That is how votes cast on levers were switched. You must be aware of this fact by now yet continue to ignore it.

http://www.richardcharnin.com/StanislevicNYLevers.htm

You are an engineer and this ain’t rocket science. So what is your explanation? We have been waiting a long time for onet.

After a seven year investigation, the NIST has finally agreed that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration – and yet still claim that it collapsed due to fires. You referred to “simple observable mechanical principles such as gravity” above. And we are supposed to believe the obviously politicized NIST? What can you tell us about the “bugs” in the central tabulators that were used to COUNT the votes CAST on levers? You claim to be a “voice in the wilderness” as you continue your quixotic campaign to bring back those unverifiable lever machines while ignoring the fact that votes CAST on levers were COUNTED on central tabulators.

Finally, we can agree on something: a robust manual hand-count of the votes CAST on optical scanners that are COUNTED on computers. Sound familiar? So why don’t you admit that votes CAST on mechanical lever machines and COUNTED on central tabulators was INFERIOR to the optical scanner/central tabulator system in which PAPER BALLOTS can be hand-counted?

Virginia Martin of Columbia County is to be commended. She is the only NY election official to do a complete hand count of the optical scanned paper ballots. Columbia had just 26,000 voters in 2000 and 2004. This is an interesting fact which confirms that Columbia is serious about having fair elections: It was the only one of 62 NY counties in which Bush’s vote share DECLINED from 2000 to 2004!

New York State 2000 and 2004 recorded votes are provided for each county in the tables below.

One other interesting point to mull over:

In 2000, 2004 and 2008, the Democratic share of the late (paper ballot) votes recorded after Election Day was 7% higher than the Election Day share! Was it because the late votes were cast on paper ballots and Election Day votes were cast on Levers?

New York City and the suburbs were the focus of massive Bush 2004 election fraud. EIRS data shows that in heavily Democratic NY City, long lines and faulty machines disenfranchised thousands of voters: http://www.richardcharnin.com/NY2004EIRS.htm

In 2004, there was a 17% increase over 2000 in the national recorded vote (105 to 122 million). Kerry captured 57-59% of new voters!

Are we expected to believe the implausible Bush vs. Kerry recorded vote changes in the most heavily populated New York Democratic counties? Here is the graph: http://www.richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png

1. Kings (Brooklyn): Bush’s recorded vote increased by 75% and Kerry’s increased by just 5%!

2. Bronx: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 59% and Kerry’s increased by just 10%!

3. Queens:, Bush’s recorded vote increased by 36% and Kerry’s increased by just 5%!

4. Nassau: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 30% and Kerry’s declined by 2%!

5. Rockland: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 29% and Kerry’s declined by 9%!

6. Orange: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 27% and Kerry’s increased by just 9%!

7. Staten Island: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 40% and Kerry’s declined by 9%!

HS

4. Instead of the facts about NOT trusting computers to count votes, what our public officials and the media have been told is that:

• New York has the most "rigorous software certification process";
• paper ballots would be "available" for audits and recounts, "if necessary";
• NY would "RELY on the paper ballots";
• NY has a 100% "recount" law (the Election Law § 9-208 "recanvass," which never required recounts of ALL paper ballots, but only absentee, emergency and provisional ballots, and was recently amended only to require some form of ballot accounting).

All of the above provided New Yorkers who did not fact-check these statements with a false sense of security about our voting system, our election laws and our ultimate "reliance" on paper ballots to "verify" elections.

In other words, New Yorkers have been sold a bill of goods and the Legislature and Judiciary have heard very little to correct this record.

RC

OK. Let’s start by recognizing that the fault lies not in the optical scanners, but in the corrupt election officials, judges who refuse to hand- count the verifiable paper ballots as a check on the CENTRAL TABULATORS (I.E. COMPUTERS). And remember that there were NO paper ballots in the LEVER/COMPUTER voting system in which the votes were also counted by CENTRAL TABULATORS that are vulnerable to malicious unverifiable programming.

Have you been reading my posts? I already wrote about voters having a false sense of security in the UNVERIFIABLE levers:

http://www.richardcharnin.com/NewYorkLeverFraud.htm

http://www.richardcharnin.com/NewYorkVotingAnomalies.htm

HS

With respect to the SD 7 no-recount case, perhaps the attorneys should have had a computer scientist such as Ron Rivest or Rebecca Mercuri testify about the need not to trust software to count votes. But the judge didn't even want to hear testimony from an election auditing expert.

And please remember, the lawyers in the SD 7 case were working for the NY State Senate -- who also have their OWN lawyers who have written some of the very election laws in question in this case! This is part of the same Legislature that has not been properly educated about the risks of computerized vote-counting in the first place -- only to have it come back and bite them in their bids for re-election.

RC

You need to compare Oregon, which mandates random hand-counting of optically-scanned paper ballots to check the machine count, to New York which does not mandate.

And let’s repeat: votes that were CAST on levers and miscounted by central tabulators could not be verified since there were NO PAPER BALLOTS TO RECOUNT.

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVsNYVoting.htm

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

And now that NY has optically scanned paper ballots, the corrupt election officials and judiciary REFUSE TO COUNT them as a check on the central tabulator (i.e. computer) machine counts!

Now why don’t you call out the corrupt NY officials who refuse to count the paper ballots and stop whining for a return to the ancient, corrupt, unverifiable, paperless, nontransparent mechanical levers. The levers can be rigged by shaving gears, not counting past 999 and break down in highly Democratic districts, disenfranchising thousands. Voters lucky enough to have their votes CAST can still have them miscounted on CENTRAL TABULATOR COMPUTERS – and never know it.

Do you get it yet?

HS

The future for election integrity looks pretty bleak in the Empire State, but we'll keep watching and waiting. The other major bright spot is of course Nassau County's bipartisan lawsuit to return to the lever voting system, which is ongoing.

RC

That is a bright spot? To bring back an UNVERIFIABLE VOTING SYSTEM in which votes CAST on LEVERS are COUNTED on CENTRAL TABULATORS? Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

These are the facts that you conveniently ignore:

1. NY votes were cast on levers

2. The votes were counted on central tabulators

3, Central tabulators are computers

4. There were no paper ballots to verify the machine counts

5. The lever voting system was never transparent!

The 2004 NY exit poll showed a massive 12% discrepancy in Kerry's margin. The exit poll timeline indicated that Kerry won NY by a constant 64-35%. But the recorded vote was 58-40% (the exit poll margin of error was 2%). According to the Census Bureau, there were more than 300,000 uncounted votes in NY State, the vast majority for Kerry: http://www.richardcharnin.com/2004NewYorkLeverExitPollDiscepancies.htm

Bush won the recorded vote by just 3.0 million. Kerry’s New York margin was reduced by nearly 1.0 million votes due to election fraud. In California, his margin was cut by approximately 1.4 million. Approximately 80% of his “mandate” was from these strong Democratic states.

Kerry won the national aggregate of the state unadjusted exit polls by 52-47%, but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. The average exit poll discrepancy (WPD) was 7.4%. The WPD for mechanical lever precincts was 10.6%, 6.6% for punch cards, 7.1% for DREs, 6.1% for optical scanners - but just 2.2% for paper ballots.

See http://www.richardcharnin.com/NewYorkConfirmationKerryLandslide.htm.

Kerry’s Election Day vote in lever machine precincts increased by 8.6% over Gore in 2000 while Bush increased by 23.1%. There was a net increase of 5.8% in Bush’s total lever margin. The increase was much higher than all other voting methods.

2000-2004 RECORDED VOTES BY VOTING METHOD

Note: For the 2000 election, voting methods in several states (approximately 6 million votes) are unavailable.

Voting	2004	2000	Vote						2004				Share			Vote Change			Pct Change vs 2000		Bush Net Increase
Method	Precints	Vote	GORE	BUSH	NADER	GORE	BUSH	NADER	Vote	KERRY	BUSH	NADER	KERRY	BUSH	NADER	KERRY	BUSH	NADER	KERRY	BUSH	Margin	Margin%	Incid
	184,824	96,717	46,737	47,406	2,574	48.32%	49.01%	2.66%	116,008	56,099	59,505	404	48.36%	51.29%	0.35%	9,363	12,100	-2,171	20.0%	25.5%	2,737	2.2%	1,966
Paper	4,737	1,518	653	819	46	43.0%	53.9%	3.01%	1,879	828	1,043	8	44.07%	55.52%	0.42%	104	156	-39	15.9%	19.0%	52	0.6%	0
Opscan	66,451	33,078	15,318	16,827	933	46.3%	50.9%	2.82%	41,411	19,525	21,776	111	47.15%	52.58%	0.27%	2,218	3,669	-825	14.5%	21.8%	1,450	0.9%	303
Lever	26,698	13,977	7,608	5,886	483	54.4%	42.1%	3.45%	15,663	8,279	7,259	125	52.86%	46.34%	0.80%	658	1,363	-358	8.6%	23.1%	706	5.8%	243
Punch	26,083	11,306	5,494	5,554	258	48.6%	49.1%	2.29%	13,037	6,384	6,638	15	48.97%	50.92%	0.12%	890	1,084	-243	16.2%	19.5%	194	1.4%	213
DRE	46,551	28,875	14,166	14,123	585	49.1%	48.9%	2.03%	33,467	16,178	17,198	91	48.34%	51.39%	0.27%	2,012	3,074	-495	14.2%	21.8%	1,062	3.2%	1,171
Other	14,304	7,963	3,497	4,196	269	43.9%	52.7%	3.38%	10,550	4,905	5,592	53	46.49%	53.00%	0.50%	601	801	-232	17.2%	19.1%	200	-2.3%	36
TIMELINE		Total	GORE	BUSH	OTHER	GORE	BUSH	OTHER	Total	KERRY	BUSH	OTHER	KERRY	BUSH	OTHER	KERRY	BUSH	OTHER	KERRY	BUSH	OTHER	Margin	Change
Election Day		102,597	49,505	49,255	3,837	48.3%	48.0%	3.74%	117,074	56,227	59,686	1,162	48.03%	50.98%	0.99%	6,721	10,431	-2,675	-0.23%	2.97%	-3.01%	3,710	3.20%
Late		2,819	1,499	1,204	116	53.2%	42.7%	4.12%	5,213	2,800	2,354	58	53.72%	45.16%	1.11%	1,302	1,150	-58	0.56%	2.44%	-2.75%	(152)	1.88%
Total		105,416	51,004	50,459	3,953	48.4%	47.9%	3.75%	122,287	59,027	62,040	1,220	48.27%	50.73%	1.00%	8,023	11,581	-2,733	-0.11%	2.87%	-2.75%	3,558	2.98%

2004 UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL BY VOTING METHOD WPD is Within Precinct Discrepancy
Voting	2004	WPD Adj	Share	WPD Adj	Vote
Method	WPD	Kerry	Bush	Kerry	Bush	Nader	Total
	6.62%	51.7%	48.0%	59,937	55,668	404	116,008
Paper	2.2%	45.2%	54.4%	849	1,023	8	1,879
Opscan	6.1%	50.2%	49.5%	20,788	20,512	111	41,411
Lever	10.6%	58.2%	41.0%	9,109	6,429	125	15,663
Punch	6.6%	52.3%	47.6%	6,814	6,208	15	13,037
DRE	7.1%	51.9%	47.8%	17,366	16,009	91	33,467
Other	2.0%	47.5%	52.0%	5,011	5,486	53	10,550

New York State County Recorded Vote Changes from 2000 to 2004

(in thousands of votes )

New York	2000								2004
	Precincts	Total	Gore	Bush	Other	Gore	Bush	Other	Total	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other
Election Day	15553	6,270	3,747	2,222	300	59.8%	35.4%	4.8%	6,892	3,993	2,796	104	57.9%	40.6%	1.5%
Total Recorded	15,553	6,822	4,108	2,403	311	60.2%	35.2%	4.6%	7,391	4,314	2,963	114	58.4%	40.1%	1.5%
Late		552	361	181	11	65.4%	32.7%	1.9%	499	321	167	10	64.3%	33.6%	2.1%
County
Brooklyn	1888	557	445.2	89.4	22.3	80%	16%	4%	630	468.5	156.6	5.2	74%	25%	0.8%
Suffolk	1006	536	285.3	224.0	26.9	53%	42%	5%	618	303.4	301.7	13.3	49%	49%	2.1%
Nassau	1070	554	319.1	214.2	20.7	58%	39%	4%	597	312.4	278.7	6.0	52%	47%	1.0%
Manhattan	1100	522	409.8	78.9	33.1	79%	15%	6%	572	468.8	95.4	8.0	82%	17%	1.4%
Queens	1470	512	379.8	115.3	16.6	74%	23%	3%	559	398.1	156.7	4.7	71%	28%	0.8%
Erie	1007	384	217.7	143.4	22.5	57%	37%	6%	411	231.0	171.1	9.0	56%	42%	2.2%
Westchester	948	306	178.8	114.5	12.9	58%	37%	4%	377	218.3	153.4	5.5	58%	41%	1.5%
Monroe	792	300	152.5	132.5	15.4	51%	44%	5%	330	166.4	158.9	5.2	50%	48%	1.6%
Bronx	912	279	239.9	33.2	5.9	86%	12%	2%	318	262.7	53.0	2.0	83%	17%	0.6%
Onondaga	485	190	102.0	77.6	10.0	54%	41%	5%	199	107.4	87.7	3.5	54%	44%	1.8%
Staten Island	333	133	68.9	60.1	4.1	52%	45%	3%	148	62.7	84.5	1.2	42%	57%	0.8%
Albany	327	130	77.8	44.4	8.2	60%	34%	6%	136	81.7	51.3	2.6	60%	38%	1.9%
Orange	284	118	53.8	58.4	5.5	46%	50%	5%	135	58.9	74.4	1.8	44%	55%	1.3%
Rockland	250	117	65.3	47.0	4.5	56%	40%	4%	122	59.3	60.6	1.8	49%	50%	1.5%
Dutchess	239	105	49.0	49.5	6.5	47%	47%	6%	114	53.0	59.1	1.8	47%	52%	1.6%
Saratoga	168	89	40.4	44.5	4.2	45%	50%	5%	100	45.0	52.8	1.8	45%	53%	1.8%
Niagara	180	87	45.2	37.9	4.4	52%	43%	5%	90	44.1	43.8	1.7	49%	49%	1.9%
Oneida	209	87	39.3	42.7	4.6	45%	49%	5%	89	37.6	49.3	2.0	42%	55%	2.3%
Broome	193	81	42.1	34.5	4.6	52%	43%	6%	84	42.1	40.2	1.6	50%	48%	2.0%
Ulster	161	72	34.8	31.4	6.0	48%	44%	8%	84	45.4	36.3	1.9	54%	43%	2.3%
Rensselaer	136	64	32.7	27.7	3.8	51%	43%	6%	67	33.2	32.5	1.5	49%	48%	2.2%
Schenectady	131	63	33.3	26.1	3.2	53%	42%	5%	65	33.2	30.1	1.2	52%	47%	1.8%
Chataqua	135	55	25.4	27.0	2.5	46%	49%	5%	57	25.5	30.0	1.1	45%	53%	1.9%
Oswego	107	45	21.4	21.9	2.2	47%	48%	5%	49	23.2	24.7	1.0	47%	51%	2.0%
Ontario	88	42	18.4	21.8	2.1	44%	51%	5%	47	19.6	26.3	0.8	42%	56%	1.6%
Putnam	72	40	17.5	20.5	2.2	44%	51%	5%	44	18.1	25.1	0.5	41%	58%	1.1%
Steuben	82	38	13.7	22.4	1.6	36%	59%	4%	39	13.3	25.3	0.7	34%	64%	1.7%
Wayne	67	36	14.2	20.4	1.6	39%	56%	4%	39	14.6	23.3	0.6	38%	60%	1.7%
Tompkins	67	37	19.7	12.3	4.5	54%	34%	12%	38	24.6	13.0	0.9	64%	34%	2.4%
St Lawrence	99	37	20.0	15.3	1.8	54%	41%	5%	38	20.8	16.6	0.7	55%	44%	1.9%
Chemung	82	35	16.0	17.3	1.5	46%	50%	4%	38	16.5	20.6	0.9	43%	54%	2.4%
Jefferson	83	27	11.6	13.0	2.8	42%	47%	10%	35	15.3	19.4	0.7	43%	55%	2.1%
Cayuga	61	30	14.5	13.2	1.7	49%	45%	6%	32	16.2	15.5	0.7	50%	48%	2.2%
Catargus	74	32	12.7	17.2	1.6	40%	55%	5%	32	12.4	18.7	0.6	39%	59%	1.8%
Clinton	64	29	14.4	12.5	1.6	50%	44%	6%	31	16.2	14.1	0.7	52%	46%	2.1%
Livingston	57	26	9.8	14.3	1.4	39%	56%	6%	29	11.2	17.6	0.6	38%	60%	2.1%
Sullivan	63	25	12.6	11.4	1.3	50%	45%	5%	28	13.6	13.9	0.5	49%	50%	1.9%
Madison	51	26	11.1	13.7	1.4	42%	52%	5%	28	11.9	15.3	0.5	43%	55%	1.8%
Warren	57	26	11.1	13.4	1.3	43%	52%	5%	28	11.9	15.3	0.6	43%	55%	2.0%
Herkimer	61	25	11.2	13.0	1.2	44%	51%	5%	26	10.7	14.9	0.5	41%	57%	2.0%
Columbia	54	26	12.4	12.1	1.9	47%	46%	7%	26	14.1	11.2	0.6	54%	43%	2.1%
Genesee	53	26	10.5	14.4	1.4	40%	55%	5%	26	9.6	15.8	0.4	37%	61%	1.6%
Otsego	58	23	10.7	11.3	1.5	45%	48%	7%	25	11.5	12.5	0.5	47%	51%	2.0%
Washington	51	22	9.0	11.6	1.3	41%	53%	6%	23	9.8	12.9	0.5	42%	56%	2.4%
Greene	52	19	7.7	10.4	1.2	40%	54%	6%	23	9.1	13.6	0.5	39%	59%	2.0%
Tioga	46	21	8.6	11.4	1.0	41%	54%	5%	22	8.9	12.9	0.4	40%	58%	1.7%
Cortland	42	20	9.2	9.2	1.2	47%	47%	6%	21	9.9	10.7	0.4	47%	51%	1.9%
Fulton	49	21	8.9	11.0	0.9	43%	53%	4%	21	8.5	11.7	0.4	41%	57%	1.9%
Delaware	59	19	7.7	9.9	1.0	42%	53%	5%	20	8.0	11.6	0.5	40%	58%	2.4%
Montgomery	49	20	9.7	9.3	0.7	49%	47%	4%	20	8.8	10.6	0.4	44%	54%	1.9%
Chenang	39	19	8.5	9.4	1.0	45%	50%	5%	20	8.4	10.8	0.4	43%	55%	2.0%
Allegany	41	17	6.0	10.5	0.8	35%	61%	5%	18	6.1	11.6	0.3	34%	64%	1.7%
Essex	39	16	7.3	8.1	1.1	44%	49%	7%	17	7.9	9.0	0.4	46%	52%	2.2%
Wyoming	39	17	5.9	10.2	0.8	35%	60%	5%	17	5.8	11.1	0.2	34%	65%	1.4%
Franklin	49	16	8.1	7.2	0.9	50%	45%	5%	17	8.7	7.9	0.3	51%	47%	1.9%
Orleans	40	15	5.7	8.7	0.6	38%	58%	4%	16	5.6	9.9	0.2	35%	63%	1.6%
Seneca	27	13	6.3	6.1	0.7	48%	47%	5%	14	6.4	7.4	0.3	45%	52%	2.1%
Schoharie	29	13	4.9	7.0	0.7	39%	55%	5%	13	5.1	7.9	0.3	39%	59%	2.1%
Lewis	30	10	3.9	5.6	0.4	40%	56%	4%	11	4.3	6.1	0.2	40%	58%	1.9%
Yates	20	9	3.6	5.1	0.5	39%	55%	5%	10	3.8	5.8	0.2	39%	60%	1.6%
Schuyler	17	8	3.1	4.1	0.4	40%	54%	6%	8	3.3	4.8	0.2	40%	58%	1.9%
Hamilton	11	3	0.9	2.1	0.2	29%	64%	7%	3	1.1	2.2	0.1	32%	66%	1.6%

Vote change from 2000 -- Percent change-- ---Net to Bush-- EIRS

County	Kerry	Bush	Other	Kerry	Bush	Other	Votes	Margin	Incidents
Brooklyn	23.3	67.2	-17.1	5%	75%	-77%	43.9	14.4%	63
Suffolk	18.0	77.7	-13.7	6%	35%	-51%	59.6	11.2%	0
Nassau	(6.7)	64.5	-14.7	-2%	30%	-71%	71.3	13.3%	2
Manhattan	59.1	16.4	-25.1	14%	21%	-76%	(42.6)	-1.9%	55
Queens	18.3	41.3	-11.9	5%	36%	-72%	23.1	8.5%	23
Erie	13.3	27.7	-13.5	6%	19%	-60%	14.4	4.8%	2
Westchester	39.5	38.9	-7.3	22%	34%	-57%	(0.6)	3.8%	6
Monroe	13.9	26.3	-10.2	9%	20%	-66%	12.5	4.4%	0
Bronx	22.8	19.7	-3.9	10%	59%	-66%	(3.1)	8.0%	14
Onondaga	5.4	10.1	-6.5	5%	13%	-65%	4.7	3.0%	0
Staten Island	(6.2)	24.3	-2.9	-9%	40%	-70%	30.5	21.3%	0
Albany	3.8	6.9	-5.6	5%	16%	-68%	3.1	3.3%	1
Orange	5.1	16.0	-3.7	9%	27%	-67%	10.9	7.6%	1
Rockland	(6.0)	13.7	-2.7	-9%	29%	-60%	19.7	16.8%	4
Dutchess	4.0	9.7	-4.7	8%	20%	-72%	5.6	4.9%	1
Saratoga	4.7	8.3	-2.3	12%	19%	-56%	3.7	3.2%	0
Niagara	(1.2)	5.9	-2.7	-3%	16%	-62%	7.1	8.1%	0
Oneida	(1.7)	6.5	-2.6	-4%	15%	-56%	8.2	9.2%	0
Broome	0.0	5.7	-3.0	0%	16%	-64%	5.7	7.0%	0
Ulster	10.6	4.8	-4.1	30%	15%	-68%	(5.8)	-6.3%	1
Rensselaer	0.5	4.8	-2.4	2%	17%	-62%	4.3	6.7%	0
Schenectady	(0.0)	4.0	-2.1	0%	15%	-64%	4.0	6.6%	0
Chataqua	0.0	3.0	-1.4	0%	11%	-58%	3.0	5.3%	0
Oswego	1.8	2.9	-1.3	9%	13%	-56%	1.0	2.1%	0
Ontario	1.1	4.5	-1.4	6%	21%	-64%	3.4	6.6%	0
Putnam	0.6	4.7	-1.7	3%	23%	-77%	4.1	8.8%	0
Steuben	(0.3)	2.9	-1.0	-2%	13%	-59%	3.2	7.3%	0
Wayne	0.4	2.9	-1.0	3%	14%	-60%	2.4	5.2%	1
Tompkins	4.8	0.6	-3.6	25%	5%	-79%	(4.2)	-10.0%	0
St Lawrence	0.8	1.3	-1.1	4%	9%	-60%	0.5	1.6%	0
Chemung	0.5	3.3	-0.6	3%	19%	-38%	2.9	7.2%	0
Jefferson	3.7	6.3	-2.1	32%	49%	-74%	2.7	6.4%	0
Cayuga	1.6	2.3	-1.0	11%	17%	-59%	0.7	2.4%	0
Catargus	(0.3)	1.5	-1.0	-3%	8%	-64%	1.8	5.6%	0
Clinton	1.9	1.6	-1.0	13%	12%	-60%	(0.3)	-0.4%	0
Livingston	1.4	3.4	-0.8	14%	24%	-56%	2.0	4.3%	0
Sullivan	1.0	2.5	-0.8	8%	22%	-58%	1.5	5.8%	0
Madison	0.9	1.7	-0.8	8%	12%	-63%	0.8	2.4%	0
Warren	0.7	1.9	-0.8	7%	14%	-58%	1.2	3.7%	0
Herkimer	(0.5)	1.9	-0.7	-4%	15%	-57%	2.4	9.0%	0
Columbia	1.7	-0.8	-1.4	14%	-7%	-71%	(2.5)	-9.8%	0
Genesee	(0.8)	1.4	-1.0	-8%	10%	-70%	2.2	8.9%	0
Otsego	0.8	1.3	-1.0	8%	11%	-68%	0.4	1.7%	0
Washington	0.8	1.4	-0.7	9%	12%	-56%	0.5	1.5%	0
Greene	1.3	3.2	-0.7	17%	31%	-61%	1.9	5.9%	0
Tioga	0.4	1.4	-0.6	4%	13%	-63%	1.1	4.1%	1
Cortland	0.7	1.5	-0.7	7%	16%	-65%	0.8	3.8%	0
Fulton	(0.4)	0.6	-0.5	-4%	6%	-56%	1.0	5.1%	0
Delaware	0.2	1.6	-0.5	3%	16%	-50%	1.4	6.2%	0
Montgomery	(0.9)	1.4	-0.4	-9%	15%	-50%	2.3	11.6%	0
Chenang	(0.1)	1.3	-0.6	-1%	14%	-62%	1.4	7.1%	0
Allegany	0.0	1.0	-0.5	0%	10%	-63%	1.0	4.8%	0
Essex	0.6	0.9	-0.7	8%	11%	-67%	0.3	1.7%	0
Wyoming	(0.1)	0.9	-0.5	-2%	9%	-70%	1.0	5.8%	0
Franklin	0.6	0.7	-0.5	7%	9%	-62%	0.1	0.8%	0
Orleans	(0.1)	1.2	-0.4	-2%	13%	-61%	1.3	7.3%	0
Seneca	0.1	1.3	-0.4	2%	21%	-58%	1.2	8.2%	0
Schoharie	0.2	0.9	-0.4	4%	14%	-58%	0.7	4.7%	0
Lewis	0.3	0.6	-0.2	8%	10%	-54%	0.2	1.3%	0
Yates	0.2	0.7	-0.3	5%	15%	-66%	0.6	4.9%	0
Schuyler	0.2	0.7	-0.3	8%	18%	-64%	0.5	4.7%	0
Hamilton	0.1	0.1	-0.2	15%	6%	-76%	(0.0)	-1.5%	0

2004 Final National Exit Poll

(forced to match the recorded vote)

	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	-	-	-	20.79	17.0	54.0	44.0	2.0	11.23	9.15	0.42	-
1.0%	Gore	55.44	51.00	48.45	45.25	37.0	90.0	10.0	0.0	40.72	4.52	0.00	93%
1.0%	Bush	51.38	50.46	47.94	52.59	43.0	9.0	91.0	0.0	4.73	47.85	0.00	110%
1.7%	Other	4.16	3.95	3.76	3.67	3.0	64.0	14.0	22.0	2.35	0.51	0.81	98%
	Total	110.97	105.42	100.15	122.29	100%	48.27	50.73	1.00	59.03	62.04	1.22	122.29
					Electoral Vote		271	267
	2000	Gore	Bush	Other	Recorded		48.27	50.73	1.00	59.03	62.04	1.22	122.29
	Recorded	48.38	47.87	3.75	True – Rec		0.00	(0.00)	(0.00)	0.00	(0.00)	(0.00)	0.00
	Cast	49.95	46.30	3.75	Exit Poll		51.97	47.08	0.95	63.55	57.58	1.17	122.29
	ExitP	49.39	46.86	3.75	True – Exit		(3.70)	3.65	0.05	(4.52)	4.46	0.06	0.00

2004 National True Vote

	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	50.81	50.46	48.27	47.31	37.6	10.0	90.0	0.0	4.73	42.58	0.00	98%
1.7%	Other	4.16	3.95	3.95	3.87	3.1	64.0	14.0	22.0	2.48	0.54	0.85	98%
	Total	110.97	105.42	105.42	125.74	100%	53.63	45.34	1.03	67.43	57.00	1.30	125.74
					Electoral Vote		370	168
	2000	Gore	Bush	Other	Recorded		48.27	50.73	1.00	59.03	62.04	1.22	122.29
	Recorded	48.38	47.87	3.75	True - Rec		5.36	(5.39)	0.03	8.40	(5.04)	0.08	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		1.66	(1.74)	0.08	3.88	(0.57)	0.13	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%

2004 New York True Vote

		2000		National:																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%			-
		NY					Vote (mil)								Vote Share (%)							Vote (mil)
MoE		2000		Cast			Recorded		Alive		Turnout		Pct		Kerry			Bush		Other		Kerry	Bush		Other			Turnout
1.6%		DNV		-			-		-		1.18		15.3		70.7			27.3		2.0		0.83	0.32		0.02			-
1.0%		Gore		4.24			4.11		4.03		3.95		51.3		91.0			9.0		0.0		3.60	0.36		0.00			98%
1.0%		Bush		2.45			2.40		2.32		2.28		29.6		10.0			90.0		0.0		0.23	2.05		0.00			98%
1.4%		Other		0.31			0.31		0.30		0.29		3.8		79.4			2.9		17.7		0.23	0.01		0.05			98%
		Total		7.00			6.82		6.65		7.70		100%		63.49			35.53		0.98		4.89	2.74		0.08			7.70
		2000		Gore			Bush		Other		Recorded				58.37			40.08		1.54		4.31	2.96		0.11			7.39
		Recorded		60.21			35.23		4.56		True – Rec				5.12			(4.55)		(0.57)		0.57	(0.23)		(0.04)			0.31
		Cast		60.59			34.94		3.75		Exit Poll				64.47			33.98		1.54		4.77	2.51		0.11			7.39
		Exit Poll		61.86			34.39		4.47		True – Exit				(0.98)			1.55		(0.57)		0.12	0.22		(0.04)			0.31
	Bush				Gore voter turnout							Share of				Kerry Share DNV								Share of			Kerry Share Gore					Gore share of uncounted
	turnout		90%		92%	94%		96%		98%		Bush		55%		56%	57%		58%		59%			Bush		89%	90%		91%	92%	93%	turnout	60%	65%	70%	75%	80%
					Kerry Share (%)											Kerry Share (%)											Kerry Share (%)							Kerry share (%)
	90%		64.1		64.3	64.5		64.7		64.9		12%		63.7		63.9	64.1		64.3		64.5			12%		63.1	63.6		64.1	64.6	65.1	98%	63.2	63.3	63.4	63.5	63.6
	92%		63.7		63.9	64.1		64.4		64.6		11%		63.4		63.6	63.8		64.0		64.2			11%		62.8	63.3		63.8	64.3	64.8	96%	63.0	63.1	63.2	63.3	63.4
	94%		63.4		63.6	63.8		64.0		64.2		10%		63.1		63.3	63.5		63.7		63.9			10%		62.5	63.0		63.5	64.0	64.5	94%	62.8	62.9	63.0	63.1	63.2
	96%		63.0		63.2	63.4		63.6		63.8		9%		62.8		63.0	63.2		63.4		63.6			9%		62.2	62.7		63.2	63.7	64.2	92%	62.6	62.7	62.8	62.9	62.9
	98%		62.6		62.9	63.1		63.3		63.5		8%		62.5		62.7	62.9		63.1		63.3			8%		61.9	62.4		62.9	63.4	63.9	90%	62.4	62.5	62.6	62.6	62.7
					Kerry Margin (mil.)											Kerry Margin (mil.)											Kerry Margin (mil.)							Kerry margin (mil.)
	90%		2.25		2.28	2.31		2.34		2.37		12%		2.18		2.21	2.24		2.27		2.30			12%		2.09	2.16		2.24	2.32	2.40	98%	2.11	2.12	2.14	2.15	2.17
	92%		2.19		2.23	2.26		2.29		2.32		11%		2.14		2.17	2.20		2.23		2.26			11%		2.04	2.12		2.20	2.28	2.36	96%	2.08	2.09	2.11	2.12	2.13
	94%		2.14		2.17	2.20		2.23		2.26		10%		2.09		2.12	2.15		2.18		2.21			10%		1.99	2.07		2.15	2.23	2.31	94%	2.05	2.06	2.08	2.09	2.10
	96%		2.08		2.11	2.15		2.18		2.21		9%		2.05		2.08	2.11		2.14		2.16			9%		1.95	2.03		2.11	2.19	2.26	92%	2.02	2.03	2.05	2.06	2.07
	98%		2.03		2.06	2.09		2.12		2.15		8%		2.00		2.03	2.06		2.09		2.12			8%		1.90	1.98		2.06	2.14	2.22	90%	1.99	2.00	2.01	2.03	2.04

2004 State Recorded Vote, Exit Poll and True Vote Shares

	2004	Recorded			Exit Poll				True Vote				Flipped to
	Kerry	Bush	Margin	EV	Kerry	Bush	Margin	EV	Kerry	Bush	Margin	EV	Bush
Votes	59.03	62.04	(3.01)	252	65.34	59.20	6.14	338	67.49	56.99	10.49	370	118 EV
Share	48.27	50.73	(2.46)		51.97	47.08	4.89		53.67	45.33	8.35		states
		#N/A	na
AL	36.8	62.5	(25.6)		41.8	57.5	(15.6)		47.2	52.1	(4.9)
AK	35.5	61.1	(25.5)		40.2	56.4	(16.2)		38.9	57.7	(18.8)
AZ	44.4	54.9	(10.5)		44.5	54.7	(10.2)		48.9	50.3	(1.4)
AR	44.5	54.3	(9.8)		45.2	53.7	(8.5)		50.3	48.5	1.8	6	6
CA	54.3	44.4	9.9	55	60.1	38.6	21.5	55	60.2	38.5	21.7	55
CO	47.0	51.7	(4.7)		50.1	48.6	1.4	9	51.8	46.9	4.9	9	9
CT	54.3	43.9	10.4	7	62.3	35.9	26.4	7	61.0	37.3	23.7	7
DE	53.3	45.8	7.6	3	61.3	37.8	23.5	3	61.7	37.4	24.3	3
DC	89.2	9.3	79.8	3	90.6	7.9	82.6	3	90.6	7.9	82.6	3
FL	47.1	52.1	(5.0)		51.0	48.2	2.8	27	52.9	46.3	6.6	27	27
GA	41.4	58.0	(16.6)		42.0	57.3	(15.3)		48.2	51.2	(3.0)
HI	54.0	45.3	8.7	4	58.1	41.2	16.9	4	60.8	38.5	22.3	4
ID	30.3	68.4	(38.1)		32.3	66.4	(34.1)		34.0	64.7	(30.7)
IL	54.8	44.5	10.3	21	56.6	42.7	13.8	21	59.9	39.4	20.5	21
IN	39.3	59.9	(20.7)		40.4	58.8	(18.5)		46.0	53.2	(7.2)
IA	49.2	49.9	(0.7)		50.7	48.4	2.3	7	51.6	47.5	4.1	7	7
KS	36.6	62.0	(25.4)		37.2	61.5	(24.3)		43.8	54.8	(10.9)
KY	39.7	59.6	(19.9)		39.9	59.4	(19.5)		43.5	55.7	(12.2)
LA	42.2	56.7	(14.5)		43.5	55.4	(11.9)		48.4	50.5	(2.1)
ME	53.6	44.6	9.0	4	55.6	42.6	13.0	4	56.4	41.8	14.6	4
MD	55.9	42.9	13.0	10	59.6	39.3	20.3	10	61.5	37.4	24.1	10
MA	61.9	36.8	25.2	12	65.8	32.9	32.9	12	67.3	31.4	35.9	12
MI	51.2	47.8	3.4	17	54.4	44.6	9.8	17	55.6	43.4	12.2	17
MN	51.1	47.6	3.5	10	55.7	43.0	12.7	10	54.9	43.8	11.1	10
MS	39.8	59.4	(19.7)		49.0	50.2	(1.2)		48.1	51.1	(3.0)
MO	46.1	53.3	(7.2)		49.0	50.4	(1.4)		50.5	48.9	1.5	11	11
MT	38.6	59.1	(20.5)		37.3	60.4	(23.1)		39.7	58.0	(18.3)
NE	32.7	65.9	(33.2)		37.0	61.5	(24.5)		40.9	57.7	(16.8)
NV	47.9	50.5	(2.6)		52.8	45.5	7.3	5	54.7	43.6	11.1	5	5
NH	50.2	48.9	1.4	4	57.2	41.9	15.4	4	54.9	44.2	10.8	4
NJ	52.9	46.2	6.7	15	57.5	41.7	15.8	15	59.5	39.7	19.8	15
NM	49.0	49.8	(0.8)		53.0	45.8	7.2	5	52.7	46.2	6.5	5	5
NY	58.4	40.1	18.3	31	64.5	34.0	30.5	31	65.1	33.3	31.8	31
NC	43.6	56.0	(12.4)		49.5	50.1	(0.5)		51.3	48.3	3.0	15	15
ND	35.5	62.9	(27.4)		34.6	63.7	(29.1)		38.6	59.8	(21.2)
OH	48.7	50.8	(2.1)		54.0	45.5	8.5	20	53.6	45.9	7.7	20	20
OK	34.4	65.6	(31.1)		33.8	66.2	(32.3)		39.6	60.4	(20.8)
OR	51.3	47.2	4.2	7	52.2	46.3	6.0	7	53.6	44.9	8.7	7
PA	50.9	48.4	2.5	21	55.1	44.2	10.9	21	55.3	44.0	11.3	21
RI	59.4	38.7	20.8	4	62.1	36.0	26.1	4	65.5	32.6	32.9	4
SC	40.9	58.0	(17.1)		45.8	53.1	(7.4)		47.7	51.2	(3.5)
SD	38.4	59.9	(21.5)		35.9	62.5	(26.6)		41.7	56.7	(15.0)
TN	42.5	56.8	(14.3)		43.2	56.1	(13.0)		48.7	50.6	(1.9)
TX	38.2	61.1	(22.9)		42.0	57.3	(15.3)		43.7	55.6	(11.9)
UT	26.0	71.5	(45.5)		28.1	69.4	(41.2)		32.5	65.0	(32.5)
VT	58.9	38.8	20.1	3	66.5	31.2	35.3	3	59.7	38.0	21.7	3
VA	45.5	53.7	(8.2)		49.8	49.3	0.5	13	50.3	48.9	1.4	13	13
WA	52.8	45.6	7.2	11	56.8	41.6	15.2	11	57.2	41.2	16.0	11
WV	43.2	56.1	(12.9)		40.2	59.0	(18.8)		46.3	53.0	(6.7)
WI	49.7	49.3	0.4	10	52.1	46.9	5.2	10	52.2	46.8	5.5	10
WY	29.1	68.9	(39.8)		32.6	65.4	(32.8)		35.1	62.9	(27.8)

State Exit Poll Timeline

		FINAL EXIT			UNADJUSTED EXIT POLLS												12:40AM
		(RECORDED)			WPE / IMS						BEST GEO						COMPOSITE
	Kerry	Bush	Margin	EV	Kerry	Bush	Margin	WPE	EV	Kerry	Bush	Margin	Error	EV	Kerry	Bush	Margin	Error	EV
Total	48.27	50.73	(2.46)	251	51.97	47.03	4.94	7.39	337	51.04	48.49	2.56	5.01	301	50.26	49.11	1.15	3.60	288
AL	36.8	62.5	(25.6)		41.8	57.5	(15.6)	10.0		42.0	57.5	(15.5)	10.1		40.6	58.7	(18.1)	7.5
AK	35.5	61.1	(25.5)		40.2	56.4	(16.2)	9.3		41.2	57.4	(16.2)	9.3		39.0	58.8	(19.8)	5.7
AZ	44.4	54.9	(10.5)		44.5	54.7	(10.2)	0.3		46.5	53.5	(7.0)	3.5		46.8	53.2	(6.4)	4.1
AR	44.5	54.3	(9.8)		45.2	53.7	(8.5)	1.3		46.8	52.4	(5.6)	4.2		47.0	52.2	(5.2)	4.6
CA	54.3	44.4	9.9	55	60.1	38.6	21.5	11.6	55	56.5	43.5	13.0	3.1	55	56.5	43.5	13.0	3.1	55
CO	47.0	51.7	(4.7)		50.1	48.6	1.4	6.1	9	47.0	52.5	(5.5)	(0.8)		47.7	51.4	(3.7)	1.0
CT	54.3	43.9	10.4	7	62.3	35.9	26.4	16.0	7	59.3	39.6	19.7	9.3	7	58.1	40.5	17.6	7.2	7
DE	53.3	45.8	7.6	3	61.3	37.8	23.5	15.9	3	61.5	37.9	23.6	16.0	3	57.7	41.2	16.5	8.9	3
DC	89.2	9.3	79.8	3	90.6	7.9	82.6	2.8	3	91.1	8.1	83.0	3.2	3	90.2	8.4	81.8	2.0	3
FL	47.1	52.1	(5.0)		51.0	48.2	2.8	7.8	27	49.2	50.3	(1.1)	3.9		49.3	50.1	(0.8)	4.2
GA	41.4	58.0	(16.6)		42.0	57.3	(15.3)	1.3		43.5	56.5	(13.0)	3.6		43.0	57.1	(14.1)	2.5
HI	54.0	45.3	8.7	4	58.1	41.2	16.9	8.2	4	56.5	43.4	13.1	4.4	4	53.6	46.4	7.2	(1.5)	4
ID	30.3	68.4	(38.1)		32.3	66.4	(34.1)	4.0		30.9	69.1	(38.2)	(0.1)		31.6	68.3	(36.7)	1.4
IL	54.8	44.5	10.3	21	56.6	42.7	13.8	3.5	21	57.5	42.6	14.9	4.6	21	57.0	42.9	14.1	3.8	21
IN	39.3	59.9	(20.7)		40.4	58.8	(18.5)	2.2		40.5	59.6	(19.1)	1.6		41.3	58.8	(17.5)	3.2
IA	49.2	49.9	(0.7)		50.7	48.4	2.3	3.0	7	50.0	49.0	1.0	1.7	7	50.0	49.0	1.0	1.7	7
KS	36.6	62.0	(25.4)		37.2	61.5	(24.3)	1.1		36.6	62.8	(26.2)	(0.8)		34.4	64.6	(30.2)	(4.8)
KY	39.7	59.6	(19.9)		39.9	59.4	(19.5)	0.4		40.6	58.6	(18.0)	1.9		40.9	58.3	(17.4)	2.5
LA	42.2	56.7	(14.5)		43.5	55.4	(11.9)	2.6		43.2	56.3	(13.1)	1.4		44.3	54.8	(10.5)	4.0
ME	53.6	44.6	9.0	4	55.6	42.6	13.0	4.0	4	54.3	44.6	9.7	0.7	4	53.9	44.4	9.5	0.5	4
MD	55.9	42.9	13.0	10	59.6	39.3	20.3	7.3	10	59.4	39.7	19.7	6.7	10	56.6	42.5	14.1	1.1	10
MA	61.9	36.8	25.2	12	65.8	32.9	32.9	7.7	12	66.3	33.6	32.7	7.5	12	65.7	34.2	31.5	6.3	12
MI	51.2	47.8	3.4	17	54.4	44.6	9.8	6.4	17	51.8	47.3	4.5	1.1	17	51.9	47.1	4.8	1.4	17
MN	51.1	47.6	3.5	9	55.7	43.0	12.7	9.2	9	56.7	42.4	14.3	10.8	9	53.7	44.9	8.8	5.3	9
MS	40.2	59.0	(18.9)		49.4	49.8	(0.4)	18.5		46.2	53.2	(7.0)	11.9		43.4	56.0	(12.6)	6.3
MO	46.1	53.3	(7.2)		49.0	50.4	(1.4)	5.8		47.8	52.2	(4.4)	2.8		47.8	52.1	(4.3)	2.9
MT	38.6	59.1	(20.5)		37.3	60.4	(23.1)	(2.6)		37.8	59.9	(22.1)	(1.6)		37.2	60.0	(22.8)	(2.3)
NE	32.7	65.9	(33.2)		37.0	61.5	(24.5)	8.7		37.5	61.7	(24.2)	9.0		36.1	62.6	(26.5)	6.7
NV	47.9	50.5	(2.6)		52.8	45.5	7.3	9.9	5	49.3	47.9	1.4	4.0	5	48.9	48.3	0.6	3.2	5
NH	50.2	48.9	1.4	4	57.2	41.9	15.4	14.0	4	57.1	42.1	15.0	13.6	4	55.1	43.9	11.2	9.8	4
NJ	52.9	46.2	6.7	15	57.5	41.7	15.8	9.1	15	58.4	40.2	18.2	11.5	15	55.3	42.8	12.5	5.8	15
NM	49.0	49.8	(0.8)		53.0	45.8	7.2	8.0	5	51.7	47.5	4.2	5.0	5	50.8	48.0	2.8	3.6	5
NY	58.4	40.1	18.3	31	64.5	34.0	30.5	12.2	31	65.1	33.8	31.3	13.0	31	63.1	35.5	27.6	9.3	31
NC	43.6	56.0	(12.4)		49.5	50.1	(0.5)	11.9		48.2	51.8	(3.6)	8.8		48.1	51.9	(3.8)	8.6
ND	35.5	62.9	(27.4)		34.6	63.7	(29.1)	(1.7)		32.3	66.7	(34.4)	(7.0)		33.3	64.9	(31.6)	(4.2)
OH	48.7	50.8	(2.1)		54.0	45.5	8.5	10.6	20	53.2	46.7	6.5	8.6	20	51.7	48.3	3.4	5.5	20
OK	34.4	65.6	(31.1)		33.8	66.2	(32.3)	(1.2)		34.1	65.8	(31.7)	(0.6)		34.6	65.4	(30.8)	0.3
OR	51.3	47.2	4.2	7	52.2	46.3	6.0	1.8	7	53.0	47.0	6.0	1.8	7	50.3	47.9	2.4	(1.8)	7
PA	50.9	48.4	2.5	21	55.1	44.2	10.9	8.4	21	56.9	43.1	13.8	11.3	21	54.2	45.7	8.5	6.0	21
RI	59.4	38.7	20.8	4	62.1	36.0	26.1	5.3	4	62.4	36.3	26.1	5.3	4	63.2	34.9	28.3	7.5	4
SC	40.9	58.0	(17.1)		45.8	53.1	(7.4)	9.7		46.4	52.4	(6.0)	11.1		45.1	53.8	(8.7)	8.4
SD	38.4	59.9	(21.5)		35.9	62.5	(26.6)	(5.1)		34.9	63.2	(28.3)	(6.8)		36.8	61.5	(24.7)	(3.2)
TN	42.5	56.8	(14.3)		43.2	56.1	(13.0)	1.3		40.3	58.5	(18.2)	(3.9)		41.3	57.6	(16.3)	(2.0)
TX	38.2	61.1	(22.9)		42.0	57.3	(15.3)	7.6		36.5	63.5	(27.0)	(4.1)		37.1	62.9	(25.8)	(2.9)
UT	26.0	71.5	(45.5)		28.1	69.4	(41.2)	4.3		29.9	69.2	(39.3)	6.2		29.9	68.3	(38.4)	7.1
VT	58.9	38.8	20.1	3	66.5	31.2	35.3	15.2	3	67.0	30.4	36.6	16.5	3	64.5	32.8	31.7	11.6	3
VA	45.5	53.7	(8.2)		49.8	49.3	0.5	8.7	13	50.2	49.7	0.5	8.7	13	48.0	51.9	(3.9)	4.3
WA	52.8	45.6	7.2	11	56.8	41.6	15.2	8.0	11	54.9	44.2	10.7	3.5	11	54.1	44.6	9.5	2.3	11
WV	43.2	56.1	(12.9)		40.2	59.0	(18.8)	(5.9)		41.6	57.4	(15.8)	(2.9)		44.9	54.2	(9.3)	3.6
WI	49.7	49.3	0.4	10	52.1	46.9	5.2	4.8	10	52.5	46.8	5.7	5.3	10	49.6	49.2	0.4	0.0	10
WY	29.1	68.9	(39.8)		32.6	65.4	(32.8)	7.0		34.5	63.6	(29.1)	10.7		31.6	66.4	(34.8)	5.0