Swing vs. Exit Poll Red-Shift:  Killing the “No Fraud” Argument

 

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

 

Nov. 2, 2011

 

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats did nearly 3% better in unadjusted exit polls than in the recorded vote. The discrepancies were due to a combination of uncounted votes and electronic vote switching. The uncounted rate trend has declined, but electronic vote switching has more than taken up the slack.

 

The exit pollster's initial explanation for the 2004 discrepancies was that non-response bias skewed the exit polls.The so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr) was rebutted. So they came up with a new one: Swing vs. Red shift:  The claim was that the near-zero correlation between Swing (change in vote share from 2000 to 2004) and Red shift (the 2004 exit poll discrepancy) “kills the fraud argument”. They provided as evidence a scatterchart  of Swing vs. Red-shift in the 1250 exit poll precincts: The flat regression-line indicated that there was no correlation between swing and red-shift. In other words, no relationship meant there was no fraud.

 

But there was a problem with the data. It reflected the recorded vote - not the True Vote (based on votes cast). The pollsters used bogus recorded vote data to prove that there was no fraud - a circular argument if there ever was one. The implicit assumption was that the recorded vote reflected the True Vote - but the U.S. Vote Census indicated that there were nearly six million uncounted votes in 2000 and four million in 2004. That fact alone is proof that there is always a discrepancy between the True and recorded vote. Obviously, the recorded vote did not equal the True Vote in either election. It never does. The unadjusted 2004 aggregate state exit poll determined that Kerry was a 52-47% winner, but Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%.  The aggregate 7.4% WPD is the difference in margin. In 2000, the WPD indicated that Gore’s exit poll margin was 2% higher than his recorded 0.5% margin.

 

In fact, Edison-Mitofsky themselves refuted their  no-slope, no fraud” argument in the  2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report.  A state exit poll WPE correlation analysis showed a  relatively high 0.48 correlation for 2000-2004. Conversely, the correlation was a much lower 0.05 for 1996-2000. It was  0.15 for 1992-1996 and 0.29 for 1988-1992. If anything, the analysis shows that the 1992 and 2004  elections (Bush Sr. and Jr. were incumbents) were fraudulent, while 1996 and 2000 (Clinton was the incumbent)  were fair.

 

Correlation

2000

1996

1992

1988

2004

0.48

0.19

0.35

0.30

2000

-

0.05

0.12

0.23

1996

-

-

0.15

0.26

1992

-

-

-

0.29

 

 

When unadjusted state exit polls are used as a proxy for the True Vote, there is a strong positive swing/red-shift correlation. True Vote Swing/ Red-shift correlation is much stronger than the corresponding Recorded Vote correlation (the regression line slope is much steeper). The average absolute True Vote correlation was 0.33 higher than the Recorded Vote correlation. In every election since 1992, the swing/red-shift correlation (based on exit poll swing) was significantly higher than the corresponding recorded vote swing correlation.

 

To use a fraudulent recorded vote as the basis for calculating swing and then claim that the near-zero correlation “kills the fraud argument” is a logical fallacy.  Elections can be fraudulent or fraud-free regardless of the correlation. In 2000, the exit poll discrepancy (2.0 WPD) was much lower than in 2004 (7.4WPD) yet the correlation ratios were significantly higher.The aim was to convince the public that the 2004 election was fraud-free. It was just one example of an ongoing media disinformation campaign to cast doubt on the state and national exit polls which indicated that Kerry won easily by a 52-47% margin.

 

The scatter graphs below kill the naysayer 2004 Swing/ Red shift “no slope, no fraud” canard.

 

The Swing Redshift 1992-2004 graph displays True and recorded Vote Swing and Red shift (based on 238 state exit polls) for the 1992-2004 elections. The 0.39 True Vote Swing/Red shift correlation is significantly higher than the near-zero 0.05 recorded correlation. The flat recorded vote regression is partly due to 40 million uncounted votes. But millions of votes were also switched in cyberspace. Recorded state swing/red shift regression lines were flat in both 2004 (7.4 WPD) and 1996 (1.9 WPD). On the contrary, in 2000 (2.0 WPD) the regression line was steep – refuting the basic premise of the exit pollster argument.

 

The following graphs display the State Recorded and True Vote share Swing vs. the unadjusted Exit Poll Red shift (i.e. WPD):

Swing Redshift 1992  Swing Redshift 1996  Swing Redshift 2000  Swing Redshift 2004  Swing Redshift 2008

 

1992 - The correlations were 0.21 for the recorded vote and 0.40 for the True Vote. There were nearly 10 million uncounted votes. The WPD was 5.4.

1996 - The recorded vote correlation was nearly zero (.02). The True Vote correlation was 0.43 and the WPD was a low 1.9. There were nearly 10 million uncounted votes.

2000 - Exit poll discrepancies (2.0 WPD) were lower than in 2004, but the recorded vote correlation was higher. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.

2004 - The recorded vote correlation was 0.11, True Vote correlation 0.56 and a 7.4 WPD. There were close to 4 million uncounted votes. The Battleground state recorded vote correlation was 0.45 and near zero in Democratic and Republican states. Exit poll discrepancies in Democratic states were higher than in the Battleground states. 

2008 - The regression lines diverged. The correlation ratios were -0.38 for the recorded vote and. 0.42 for the True Vote. The WPD was a massive 10.3.

 

View the graphs by partisanship state groupings: Battleground Democratic  Republican

 

False Recall was the final naysayer argument promoted to explain the impossible number of returning Bush voters implied by the Final National Exit Poll. Once again, the recorded vote was used as the baseline, rather than total votes cast. Uncounted votes and the True Vote were ignored.

 

Unfortunately, the National Election Pool consortium has never released unadjusted precinct exit poll data. The transparent claim is the need for exit poll respondent confidentiality. Of course, they could release the data without providing personal information if they wanted to. In their 2004 report, the pollsters did provide average state exit poll WPD data for all elections since 1988. That report provided more than enough historical information to hoist the NEP, the pollsters and the naysayers on their own petard. 

 

Political scientists in the media and academia should consider this simple equation:

Recorded vote share = True Vote + Fraud component

 

It is analogous to the accounting identity: Total Assets= Liabilities + Equity

Total Voting Assets = True Vote Equity + Fraudulent Vote Liabilities

 

 

Votes (millions)

 

 

Recorded

Exit Poll

 

 

Total

Dem

Rep

Other

Dem

Rep

Dem

Rep

Avg

108.7

52.3

49.9

6.4

47.9%

46.1%

50.76%

43.10%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2008

132.3

69.5

59.9

2.0

52.9%

46.5%

57.96%

40.47%

2004

122.3

59.0

62.0

1.2

48.3%

50.7%

51.97%

47.03%

2000

105.4

51.0

50.5

4.0

48.4%

47.9%

49.40%

46.90%

1996

96.3

47.4

39.2

9.7

49.2%

40.7%

50.20%

39.80%

1992

104.4

44.9

39.1

20.4

43.0%

37.4%

45.70%

34.70%

1988

91.6

41.8

48.9

0.9

45.6%

53.4%

49.33%

49.69%

 

                                 

 

1992-2008 State Recorded and True Vote (Exit Poll) Swing vs. Red-shift (WPD)

 

 

2004

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

1996

 

 

 

1992

 

 

 

2008

 

 

 

Red-shift

Recorded

Exit Poll

 

Red-shift

Recorded

Exit Poll

 

Red-shift

Recorded

Exit Poll

 

Red-shift

Recorded

Exit Poll

 

Red-shift

Recorded

Exit Poll

 

WPD

Swing

Swing

 

WPD

Swing

Swing

 

WPD

Swing

Swing

 

WPD

Swing

Swing

 

WPD

Swing

Swing

Average

7.40

0.51%

2.97%

 

2.01

-1.96%

-2.31%

 

1.93

6.05%

4.62%

 

5.40

-3.10%

-1.66%

 

9.88

4.78%

6.57%

Correlation

 

0.11

0.56

 

 

0.38

0.66

 

 

0.02

0.41

 

 

0.21

0.40

 

 

-0.38

0.42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AL

10.0

-4.7%

-2.5%

 

5.5

-1.6%

-0.02%

 

2.4

2.3%

2.9%

 

1.2

1.0%

1.6%

 

26.6

1.9%

10.2%

AK

9.3

7.9%

12.5%

 

na

na

na

 

na

na

na

 

na

na

na

 

23.1

2.4%

8.9%

AZ

0.3

-0.3%

-0.1%

 

na

na

na

 

7.7

10.0%

10.5%

 

6.6

-2.2%

1.1%

 

12

0.5%

6.9%

AR

1.3

-1.3%

-2.3%

 

3.2

-7.9%

-5.5%

 

-1.5

0.5%

-4.1%

 

7.8

11.0%

15.3%

 

22.7

-5.7%

5.0%

CA

11.6

0.9%

4.8%

 

3.8

2.4%

1.9%

 

4.7

5.1%

3.2%

 

8.5

-1.6%

0.8%

 

12.4

6.6%

6.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CO

6.1

4.6%

4.9%

 

5.6

-2.0%

0.0%

 

1.5

4.3%

1.4%

 

7.2

-5.2%

-3.1%

 

-3.2

6.6%

1.8%

CT

16.0

-1.6%

6.0%

 

0.9

3.1%

5.6%

 

-4.2

10.6%

4.4%

 

8.3

-4.7%

-3.1%

 

27

6.3%

11.1%

DE

15.9

-1.6%

2.8%

 

7.1

3.1%

6.0%

 

1.3

8.3%

5.3%

 

7.3

0.0%

2.8%

 

12.7

8.6%

7.3%

DC

2.8

4.0%

5.4%

 

na

na

na

 

na

na

na

 

na

na

na

 

-0.2

3.3%

1.4%

FL

7.8

-1.7%

1.9%

 

0.6

0.8%

0.8%

 

0.6

9.0%

6.6%

 

5.5

0.5%

2.0%

 

3.2

3.8%

1.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GA

1.3

-1.6%

-3.8%

 

5.6

-2.9%

1.6%

 

-3.3

2.4%

-2.5%

 

6.5

4.0%

8.1%

 

7.6

5.5%

9.1%

HI

8.2

-1.8%

2.3%

 

na

na

na

 

na

na

na

 

na

na

na

 

-2.5

17.8%

12.3%

ID

4.0

2.6%

5.9%

 

-2.5

-6.0%

-9.0%

 

3.5

5.2%

6.7%

 

0.5

-7.6%

-7.3%

 

11.2

5.7%

9.5%

IL

3.5

0.2%

-1.2%

 

6.4

0.3%

4.1%

 

-1.2

5.7%

2.1%

 

6.1

0.0%

1.7%

 

8.8

7.1%

9.7%

IN

2.2

-1.7%

-2.4%

 

3.6

-0.5%

0.3%

 

2.0

4.8%

2.4%

 

6.8

-2.9%

-4.1%

 

11.5

10.6%

15.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IA

3.0

0.7%

3.7%

 

-3.0

-1.7%

-3.1%

 

-0.3

7.0%

5.8%

 

2.0

-11.4%

-10.7%

 

6.2

4.7%

6.2%

KS

1.1

-0.6%

-2.3%

 

4.4

1.2%

1.8%

 

3.2

2.3%

2.2%

 

3.4

-8.8%

-8.9%

 

8.4

4.9%

8.9%

KY

0.4

-1.7%

0.7%

 

-4.4

-4.5%

-6.2%

 

-1.0

1.3%

-1.2%

 

3.9

0.7%

2.1%

 

11.4

1.5%

6.9%

LA

2.6

-2.7%

-1.7%

 

0.6

-7.1%

-3.6%

 

-6.5

6.4%

3.7%

 

-1.0

1.5%

-0.2%

 

11.6

-2.3%

2.4%

ME

4.0

4.5%

5.4%

 

2.1

-2.5%

-3.7%

 

4.4

12.9%

12.5%

 

5.1

-5.1%

-5.8%

 

9.3

4.1%

6.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MD

7.3

-0.7%

0.8%

 

4.3

2.3%

2.7%

 

3.6

4.5%

2.2%

 

8.1

1.6%

3.1%

 

11.1

6.0%

7.6%

MA

7.7

2.1%

3.8%

 

4.3

-1.7%

-1.2%

 

3.3

13.9%

12.0%

 

7.1

-5.7%

-5.5%

 

11.6

-0.1%

1.2%

MI

6.4

0.0%

2.1%

 

2.2

-0.4%

-1.1%

 

3.5

7.9%

7.2%

 

4.9

-1.9%

0.0%

 

10.2

6.1%

7.8%

MN

9.2

3.2%

8.0%

 

-0.5

-3.2%

-2.6%

 

-1.7

7.6%

3.6%

 

6.4

-9.4%

-5.6%

 

15.8

3.0%

6.2%

MS

18.5

-1.0%

6.7%

 

3.2

-3.4%

-1.9%

 

0.3

3.3%

0.9%

 

5.1

1.7%

4.4%

 

10.5

3.2%

-0.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MO

5.8

-1.0%

2.8%

 

-1.8

-0.5%

-4.3%

 

5.8

3.5%

2.1%

 

8.6

-3.8%

0.2%

 

16.2

3.2%

8.5%

MT

-2.6

5.2%

5.5%

 

-3.2

-7.9%

-10.7%

 

2.4

3.6%

5.2%

 

-0.7

-8.6%

-11.1%

 

12.7

8.6%

17.1%

NE

8.7

-0.6%

1.7%

 

4.1

-1.7%

-2.9%

 

6.5

5.6%

7.4%

 

2.8

-9.8%

-10.9%

 

15.1

8.9%

12.2%

NV

9.9

1.9%

3.9%

 

6.0

2.0%

5.0%

 

na

na

na

 

-2.1

-0.6%

-3.1%

 

2.1

7.3%

3.5%

NH

14.0

3.4%

9.2%

 

2.4

-2.5%

-7.4%

 

12.2

10.4%

11.5%

 

10.1

2.6%

4.6%

 

15

3.9%

4.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NJ

9.1

-3.2%

1.1%

 

0.4

2.4%

1.7%

 

1.9

10.8%

6.1%

 

11.2

0.4%

3.9%

 

13.3

4.2%

6.3%

NM

8.0

1.1%

7.7%

 

-5.1

-1.3%

-7.3%

 

7.0

3.3%

3.6%

 

6.3

-1.0%

-1.2%

 

4.2

7.9%

5.8%

NY

12.2

-1.8%

2.6%

 

3.3

0.7%

3.4%

 

-2.1

9.7%

6.4%

 

4.6

-1.9%

-3.2%

 

17.5

4.4%

7.0%

NC

11.9

0.4%

1.4%

 

9.8

-0.8%

0.8%

 

6.5

1.4%

2.5%

 

4.2

0.9%

2.8%

 

7.4

6.1%

4.0%

ND

-1.7

2.4%

2.6%

 

-2.0

-7.1%

-9.1%

 

2.0

7.9%

6.8%

 

4.2

-10.8%

-9.5%

 

-11.5

9.0%

4.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH

10.6

2.2%

7.0%

 

1.0

-0.9%

-2.0%

 

3.1

7.2%

6.5%

 

4.4

-4.0%

-2.6%

 

9.7

2.7%

2.3%

OK

-1.2

-4.0%

-2.2%

 

-4.7

-2.0%

-3.4%

 

-2.0

6.4%

3.1%

 

4.7

-7.3%

-2.1%

 

12.7

-0.1%

6.8%

OR

1.8

4.4%

5.3%

 

na

na

na

 

2.4

4.7%

-0.9%

 

13.6

-8.8%

-5.7%

 

3.6

5.4%

6.2%

PA

8.4

0.3%

4.1%

 

0.8

1.4%

0.0%

 

3.6

4.0%

4.8%

 

2.0

-3.2%

-2.6%

 

18.2

3.6%

8.7%

RI

5.3

-1.6%

0.9%

 

0.4

1.3%

0.9%

 

1.1

12.7%

8.7%

 

9.0

-8.6%

-4.0%

 

10.2

3.7%

5.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SC

9.7

0.0%

3.1%

 

3.5

-2.9%

-2.6%

 

2.8

4.0%

4.4%

 

2.0

2.3%

2.6%

 

5.1

4.0%

1.7%

SD

-5.1

0.9%

-2.1%

 

0.9

-5.5%

-6.2%

 

2.3

5.9%

8.4%

 

-2.8

-9.4%

-11.3%

 

8.4

6.3%

12.8%

TN

1.3

-4.8%

-3.0%

 

-2.2

-0.7%

-3.3%

 

3.0

0.9%

-1.0%

 

6.8

5.5%

9.4%

 

12.5

-0.7%

4.5%

TX

7.6

0.2%

3.8%

 

0.4

-5.8%

-5.9%

 

0.6

6.8%

5.7%

 

2.8

-6.3%

-4.5%

 

5.7

5.4%

4.2%

UT

4.3

-0.3%

2.3%

 

-1.0

-7.0%

-9.2%

 

3.5

8.6%

9.3%

 

2.2

-7.4%

-6.3%

 

-4.2

8.3%

3.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VT

15.2

8.3%

16.1%

 

-0.4

-2.7%

-5.4%

 

5.0

7.2%

5.4%

 

8.6

-1.5%

-0.1%

 

8

8.5%

5.0%

VA

8.7

1.0%

4.4%

 

2.0

-0.7%

-3.0%

 

6.5

4.6%

6.1%

 

3.5

1.4%

3.4%

 

19.5

7.1%

12.7%

WA

8.0

2.7%

4.8%

 

3.7

0.3%

1.1%

 

2.0

6.4%

4.7%

 

5.5

-6.6%

-6.6%

 

2.6

4.6%

1.1%

WV

-5.9

-2.4%

-3.1%

 

-4.5

-5.9%

-9.5%

 

2.6

3.1%

2.8%

 

3.2

-3.8%

-2.3%

 

5.1

-0.6%

4.9%

WI

4.8

1.9%

5.5%

 

-2.4

-1.0%

-3.6%

 

2.8

7.7%

7.8%

 

2.5

-10.3%

-7.9%

 

13.7

6.5%

11.2%

WY

7.0

1.4%

4.4%

 

1.0

-9.1%

-10.6%

 

3.9

2.7%

1.7%

 

5.9

-3.9%

-0.5%

 

2.1

3.5%

1.5%

 

 

 

2004 State Partisanship Recorded and True Vote (Exit Poll) Swing vs. Red-shift (WPD)                                                                                                                       

 

Battleground

WPD

True Swing

Recorded

 

Democratic

WPD

True Swing

Recorded

 

Republican

WPD

True Swing

Recorded

Average

6.9

4.45%

-0.34%

 

Average

8.9

3.85%

-2.52%

 

Average

3.8

1.28%

-3.17%

WPD Correlation

1.00

0.63

0.46

 

WPD Correlation

1.00

0.46

-0.11

 

WPD Correlation

1.00

0.49

-0.004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CO

6.1

4.88%

3.68%

 

CA

11.6

4.76%

-1.85%

 

AL

10.0

-2.50%

-10.74%

FL

7.8

1.85%

-5.00%

 

CT

16.0

5.95%

-7.10%

 

AK

9.3

12.50%

5.41%

IA

3.0

3.70%

-0.98%

 

DE

15.9

2.78%

-5.46%

 

AZ

0.3

-0.13%

-4.19%

MN

9.2

8.03%

1.07%

 

DC

2.8

5.43%

3.64%

 

AR

1.3

-2.27%

-4.32%

MO

5.8

2.82%

-3.86%

 

HI

8.2

2.32%

-9.58%

 

GA

1.3

-3.76%

-4.91%

NV

9.9

3.85%

0.95%

 

IL

3.5

-1.22%

-1.67%

 

ID

4.0

5.87%

1.41%

NH

14.0

9.24%

2.64%

 

ME

4.0

5.44%

3.88%

 

IN

2.2

-2.45%

-5.05%

NM

8.0

7.69%

-0.85%

 

MD

7.3

0.85%

-3.41%

 

KS

1.1

-2.27%

-4.58%

NC

11.9

1.43%

0.39%

 

MA

7.7

3.83%

-2.14%

 

KY

0.4

0.71%

-4.74%

OH

10.6

7.05%

1.40%

 

MI

6.4

2.05%

-1.71%

 

LA

2.6

-1.66%

-6.83%

OR

1.8

5.29%

3.71%

 

NJ

9.1

1.15%

-9.15%

 

MS

18.5

6.70%

-2.78%

PA

8.4

4.13%

-1.67%

 

NY

12.2

2.61%

-6.69%

 

MT

(2.6)

5.50%

4.57%

VA

8.7

4.40%

-0.16%

 

RI

5.3

0.89%

-8.32%

 

NE

8.7

1.73%

-4.22%

WV

(5.9)

-3.09%

-6.54%

 

VT

15.2

16.10%

10.20%

 

ND

(1.7)

2.59%

0.24%

WI

4.8

5.47%

0.16%

 

WA

8.0

4.84%

1.60%

 

OK

(1.2)

-2.25%

-9.26%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SC

9.7

3.10%

-1.15%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD

(5.1)

-2.12%

1.27%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TN

1.3

-3.01%

-10.41%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TX

7.6

3.84%

-1.54%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UT

4.3

2.30%

-5.05%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WY

7.0

4.38%

0.27%