By contrast, the election results showed Democratic House candidates won 52.7 percent of the vote to 45.1 percent for Republican candidates, producing a 7.6 percent margin in the total vote for the U.S. Houseďż˝"3.9 percent less than the Edison-Mitofsky poll. This discrepancy, far beyond the poll's +/- 1 percent margin of error, has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring by chance.
By Wednesday afternoon the Edison-Mitofsky poll had been adjusted, by a process known as "forcing," to match the reported vote totals for the election. This forcing process is done to supply data for future demographic analysis, the main purpose of the Exit Poll. It involved re-weighting every response so that the sum of those responses matched the reported election results. The final result, posted at 1:00 p.m. November 8, showed the adjusted Democratic vote at 52.6 percent and the Republican vote at 45.0 percent, a 7.6 percent margin exactly mirroring the reported vote totals.
The forcing process in this instance reveals a great deal. The Party affiliation of the respondents in the original 7:07 p.m. election night Exit Poll closely reflected the 2004 Bush-Kerry election margin. After the forcing process, 49-percent of respondents reported voting for Republican George W. Bush in 2004, while only 43-percent reported voting for Democrat John Kerry. This 6-percent gap is more than twice the size of the actual 2004 Bush margin of 2.8 percent, and a clear distortion of the 2006 electorate.
There is a significant over-sampling of Republican voters in the adjusted 2006 Exit Poll. It simply does not reflect the actual turnout on Election Day 2006.
EDA's Simon says, "It required some incredible distortions of the demographic data within the poll to bring about the match with reported vote totals. It not only makes the adjusted Exit Poll inaccurate, it also reveals the corresponding inaccuracy of the reported election returns which it was forced to equal. The Democratic margin of victory in U.S. House races was substantially larger than indicated by the election returns."
"Many will fall into the trap of using this adjusted poll to justify inaccurate official vote counts, and vice versa," adds Bruce O'Dell, EDA's Data Analysis Coordinator, "but that's just arguing in circles. The adjusted exit poll is a statistical illusion. The weighted but unadjusted 7 pm exit poll, which sampled the correct proportion of Kerry and Bush voters and also indicated a much larger Democratic margin, got it right." O'Dell and Simon's paper, detailing their analysis of the exit polls and related data, is now posted on the EDA website, .
The Election Defense Alliance continues to work with other election integrity groups around the country to analyze the results of specific House and Senate races. That data and any evidence of election fraud, malicious attacks on election systems, or other malfunctions that may shed more light on the discrepancy between exit polls and election results will be reported on EDA's website.
This controversy comes amid growing public concern about the security and accuracy of electronic voting machines, used to count approximately 80 percent of the votes cast in the 2006 election. The Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy, in a September 2006 study, was the latest respected institution to expose significant flaws in the design and software of one of the most popular electronic touch-screen voting machines, the AccuVote-TS, manufactured by Diebold, Inc. The Princeton report described the machine as "vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces." These particular machines were used to count an estimated 10 percent of votes on Election Day 2006.
A separate "Security Assessment of the Diebold Optical Scan Voting Terminal," released by the University of Connecticut VoTeR Center and Department of Computer Science and Engineering last month, concluded that Diebold's Accuvote-OS machines, optical scanners which tabulate votes cast on paper ballots, are also vulnerable to "a devastating array of attacks." Accuvote-OS machines are even more widely used than the AccuVote-TS.
Similar vulnerabilities affect other voting equipment manufacturers, as revealed last summer in a study by the Brennan Center at New York University which noted all of America's computerized voting systems "have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections."
The most prudent response to this controversy is a moratorium on the further implementation of computerized voting systems. EDA's O'Dell cautioned, "It is so abundantly clear that these machines are not secure, there's no justification for blind confidence in the election system given such dramatic indications of problems with the official vote tally." And EDA's Simon summarized, "There has been a rush by some to celebrate 2006 as a fair election, but a Democratic victory does not equate with a fair election. It's wishful thinking at best to believe that the danger of massive election rigging is somehow past."
EDA continues to call for a moratorium on the deployment of electronic voting machines in U.S. elections; passage of H.R. 6200, which would require hand-counted paper ballots for presidential elections beginning in 2008; and adoption of the Universal Precinct Sample (UPS) handcount sampling protocol for verification of federal elections as long as electronic election equipment remains in use.
The Exit Poll analysis is a part of Election Defense Alliance's six-point strategy to defend the accuracy and transparency of the 2006 elections. In addition to extensive analysis of polling data, EDA has been engaged in independent exit polling, election monitoring, legal interventions, and documentation of election irregularities.
*The sample was a national sample of all voters who voted in House races. It was drawn just like the 2004 sample of the presidential popular vote. That is, precincts were chosen to yield a representative (once stratified) sample of all voters wherever they lived/voted--including early and absentee voters and voters in districts where House candidates ran unopposed but were listed on the ballot and therefore could receive votes. As such, the national sample EDA worked with is exactly comparable to the total aggregate vote for the House that we derived from reported vote totals and from close estimates in cases of the few unopposed candidates where 2006 figures were unavailable but prior elections could be used as proxy. It is a very large sampling of the national total, with a correspondingly small (+/-1%) MOE. There were four individual districts sampled for reasons known only to Edison/Mitofsky
ABOUT ELECTION DEFENSE ALLIANCE
The purpose of EDA is to develop a comprehensive national strategy for the election integrity movement, in order to regain public control of the voting process in the United States. Its goal is to insure that the election process is transparent, secure, verifiable, and worthy of the public trust. EDA fosters coordination, resource-sharing, and cohesive strategic planning for a nationwide grassroots network of citizen election integrity advocates.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Some might take this as evidence that they're competent enough to have pulled off 9/11 too. If so, would that they had underestimated the job then as they did with the Congressional elections this year.
"They couldn't possibly beat us by that much." Arrogant to the end.
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 12:50:58 PM
an election the way the last few elections were (most definitely) hacked, you get the feeling you can rig/hack most any election for any desired outcome. I for one, believe the 2006 elections were rigged in favour of the Dems. Why ? The answer is simple. The ones now in place have gone too far. It's time to relax a bit and let the other hand take over. It's still the same ole stanky masturbatory brain that is in charge.
Chomsky dismisses 9/11 as an inside job because, as Chomsky put it, these guys can't get anything right...so how on earth would they be able to pull that off (or so)? Well, strike 3 for all of you for being short sighted. Chomsky included. So when Russ says "Some might take this as evidence that they're competent enough to have pulled off 9/11 too".....a bell goes off in my head and I have to reach for the keyboard.
Election rigging is not restricted to G.W. Bush and friends, nor is it restricted to any particular political party (in the USA but honestly, not much to choose from, eh?), nor is it restricted to any one company or entity. For all we know, it could be an orchestra of multiple individuals / groups who most probably are very little aware of one another.
Same goes for 9/11. Chomsky is dead on when he says BushCo is incompetent of pulling off such an elaborate "inside job". True and misleading. Again and again, the puppets are dangled down before our faces, and we sit and watch as they dance. We fall into a fantasy in which the puppets are given life. They really do exist. The puppets quarrel and spat and we yearn for the "good" to defeat the "bad".
Snap out of it.
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 153 diaries, 1350 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 1:22:50 PM
A country that is willing to bomb another country back into the stoneage, should also be willing to take elections back a few centuries to where pen (or pencil) and paper played a major role. No need to go all the way back to when the one with the biggest stick ruled.
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 153 diaries, 1350 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 1:32:34 PM
This new report is crucial reading for all those concerned about election fraud--which, last Tuesday, was, again, a massive problem, notwithstanding all the blithe post-mortems issued by the US press from Tuesday night on through the week.
(Nor surprisingly, Diebold joined that chirpy chorus with a
long mendacious press release promoting Diebold's wares.)
Now here's some startling evidence of widespread fraud, assembled by my good friends at the Election Defense Alliance. It's likely that the Dems actually did win, or should have won, some 50 House seats--and that Bush/Cheney's GOP was not just "thumped" but devastated.
This is an all out assault against the very foundations of our democracy perpetrated by the stooges of the corporate/limousine class of politicians. Nothing is more important these next two years than election reform. REAL election reform.
by
Dean Powers (125 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 1:52:06 PM
My first reaction is: If there is a gram of truth in all this analysis, then where the hell is the Democratic Party? Do they have the integrity to stand up for themselves, for our election integrity, for our democracy?? If not, then what do all the supporters of the Dems do, think, say and demand???
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 508 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 3:42:54 PM
OpEdNEws broke this story. NO mainstream media have covered it yet, and it just got headlined at Bradblog. Give it a little time, and send it out to the people you know. Actually. You just made me realize, I should have included an action page with it. I'm off to add it. CU
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 3:45:36 PM
Not a bit surprised that Rove and Co. had "their math" but still missed the boat on how much the American people are over their bullshit.
The question now is whether the Dems are going to give us their 'new and improved' version of same old shit or whether we can hold their feet to the fire enough to get substantial action on this critical issue.
So few in government can be trusted. So few...
by
Jim Prues (15 articles, 33 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 73 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 3:45:58 PM
Hmmm, why am I not surprised. This must be what Rove referred to as "THE math" when interviewed by a NPR reporter concerning national polls. So, Rove's special math was nothing more than "0"s and "1"s -- the computer's programming language. That must be "the" special math that he was referring to when he said that he was confident that the Republicans would emerge victorious in the midterms. God, those people are awful. They need to go to jail for a long, long time. Something must be done about this IMMEDIATELY. Bring back the PAPER BALLOT!
by
Mike Browne (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 4:35:57 PM
Time for a Congressionally Mandated Recount of Entire Nation
If US Congress authorizes $127 TO $160 BILLION on top of $70 BILLION already OKd for this fiscal year for Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (most to Iraq), they can anti-up whatever it takes to GUARANTEE democracy here. I don't give a damn who they have to borrow it from to fund the 2006 Nation Election Recount. 2008 elections can not arrive without this matter resolved.
by
Amanda Lang (22 articles, 13579 quicklinks, 431 diaries, 577 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 6:16:41 PM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Nasty Attacks
Editor's Message: This is a community here. You don't call name or get nasty. Want to disagree. Fine, Use intelligent commentary and arguments, not childish name calling. First warning
Shut up stupid, if there was a vast Republican conspiracy don't you think they would have, umm I don't know KEPT THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAJORITY. I love how you people who believe in this conspiracy crap cling to it no matter what. One of the retards that commented on this oped said "I for one, believe the 2006 elections were rigged in favor of the Dems. Why ? The answer is simple. The ones now in place have gone too far. It's time to relax a bit and let the other hand take over." That's insane Illuminati talk. Why don't you idoits put down the John Grisham novel and actually try to help solve these problems. Maybe try to get your beloved Democrat leaders to do something about these voting machines if there so bad. Just do something besides making up insane babble you 9/11 conspiracy believing morons. And if you want to know I'm a Republican who voted mostly democrat this last election because I think the Republicans messed up the last 6 years, not because I think Bush and seven Jewish bankers are trying to turn the whole world into one huge neo-con corporation.
by
Bill Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 7:34:20 PM
Didn't you read the reference article? Rove and his fellow co-conspirators exuded confidence about the upcoming elections because they believed that a bonus hokus-pokus electronic vote of +4% for the Republicans should be enough to do the trick and keep their majorities in Congress. Why don't you read the article before you criticize?
by
Mike Browne (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 11:25:36 PM
I have only been a member here for about five, or six month, so I am not as familiar as you are with folks here. But now that you mention it, I will suggest to Rob Kall he put a little thought and action in about those machines. A little confrontation from the real guys never hurt no one.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 1:55:21 AM
We have a voting integrity editor here, Joan Brunwasser, who has done an extraordinary job building a library of articles here that may be unsurpassed on the web. Go to the table of contents and check out election and voting. You'll see thousands of articles and links.
We've published and distributed thousands of DVDs on e-voting and have sent Joan to cover the latest conference. We got the exclusive scoop on this article because we earned it.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 5:00:11 AM
To Rove and the small cadre of operatives who have been at his side throughout the administration -- including Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and White House political director Sara Taylor -- confidence that Republicans will keep their majorities in Congress flows from a conviction that a political operation that has produced three consecutive national victories is capable of one more, despite voter disaffection with Iraq and GOP scandals in Washington. Does that political operation include control of electronic-voting machines? After George W. Bush won the 2004 U.S. election, tales of vote fraud began circulating. University of Pennsylvania organizational-dynamics professor Steven J. Freeman has said that Bush's final-day tallies were significantly higher than exit-poll results in 10 of the 11 battleground states. Freeman says there is a 250,000,000:1 chance of those discrepancies occurring simultaneously in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
Much attention focused on touch-screen electronic-voting machines, which don't require paper ballots, making it impossible to physically verify Voter's intention and election results. In 2004, when touch-screen voting machines were widely deployed for the first time in a national election, questions about the security and reliability of the machines--and therefore, the 2004 election results--abounded. Edward Felten, Ari Feldman, and Alex Halderman of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, in a report titled "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine" detail simple methods to compromise the security of electronic-voting machines to steal an election.
Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that voters "know something is wrong" in Washington and urged Democrats to create change in the November elections. "I have never seen the American people so serious," said Clinton. "I think I know why. People know things are out of whack. The rhythm of our public life and our common life in America has been disturbed."
The Republican establishment "know something is wrong" too and are in widespread panic about the coming Democratic victory in the 2006 midterm elections. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more.
Incongruously, there are two in the Republican establishment whose confidence about GOP prospects hit even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove. Party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats -- shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats. In the Senate, Rove and Bush believe, a Democratic victory would require the opposition to "run the table," as one official put it, to pick up the necessary six seats -- a prospect the White House seems to regard as nearly inconceivable. "They aren't even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing.
The official White House line of supreme self-assurance comes from the top down. Bush has publicly and privately banished any talk of losing the GOP majorities. The question is whether this is a case of "justified confidence" -- based on Bush's and Rove's inside knowledge of the electronic-voti
