Thursday, June 21, 2012

MATHEMATICIAN RICHARD CHARNIN TAKES A FINAL LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THE WISCONSIN RECALL ELECTION, THE FORCING OF THE EXIT POLLS TO MATCH THE "OFFICIAL" VOTE COUNT, THE FAILURE OF THE MEDIA TO REVEAL THE ACTUAL EXIT POLL RESULTS, AND PREDICTION OF THE WINNER BY HIS TRUE VOTE MODEL. HE ALSO REVEALS THE "STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" RESULTS (84% OF THEM FAVORING REPUBLICANS) OF THE "OFFICIAL" OUTCOMES OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS FROM 1988 TO 2008 WHEN COMPARED WITH THE UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS.

Wisconsin Recall: The adjusted Final Exit Poll was forced to match an unlikely recorded vote

Richard Charnin

June 6, 2012
Updated: June 20

The media and the exit pollsters have done it again.

Before the first votes were posted, the media reported that based on the exit polls, the election was “too close to call”. But Walker won by 53.2-46.3%, a 173,000 vote margin. Assuming “too close to call” meant that the exit poll indicated a 50/50 split, then there was a significant 7% discrepancy between the unadjusted exit poll and the recorded vote. I believe that Barrett was actually leading the exit polls. Of course, we will never know until the unadjusted exit polls are released. In any case, what caused the unknown red shift?

According to the Wisconsin True Vote Model , Barrett was a likely 54-46% winner. Barrett should have won easily – assuming the caveat of a fair election. But the election was very likely stolen.

Forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

The Final Wisconsin adjusted exit poll (2547 respondents) indicated that Walker had 53.0% (see the NY Times link below). The 0.2% difference between the Final and the recorded vote was the result of the standard policy of forcing the unadjusted poll to match the vote.

The pollsters claim that the exit poll had a 4.0% margin of error. But they can’t mean the final, adjusted poll because it is always forced to match the recorded vote within 0.5%.

Why did the media not provide the actual unadjusted exit poll demographics? Was it because they knew that they would have to adjust all the crosstabs to match a rigged recorded vote – and did not want the public to view the “adjustments”?

The Fraud Factor

And as is always the case, there was no mention of the fraud factor in the mainstream media. There never is. To the exit pollsters and the media, there is no such thing as election fraud.

The GOP employs overt voter disenfranchisement in plain sight by robocalling voters with false information and having election workers discourage voters from using paper ballots and vote on unverifiable touchscreen DREs. But we are supposed to believe that right-wing voting machine manufacturers would not stoop so low as to write malicious code to covertly flip votes in cyberspace.

In 2010, Walker “won” by 52.2-46.6%, supposedly due to low-Democratic turnout.
Was the election a prologue of the recall?

In the recall, Democrats turned out in droves, they wanted Walker gone. There was no way that the unpopular Governor would match, much less exceed, his 2010 vote – if the votes were counted as cast. But that is a quaint notion considering the overwhelming statistical evidence of systemic election fraud since 1988.

Implausible 2008 returning voters and 2012 vote shares

Obama had a 56.2% recorded share in Wisconsin and 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll (2.4% margin of error). Assuming Obama had a 60% True Vote share, then to match the recall vote, Walker needed the following:
1) 81% of McCain and 71% of Obama voters turned out.
2) He needed to win 25% of Obama and 95% of McCain voters.
3) He needed 46% of new voters who did not vote in 2010. The 2012 exit poll indicates he had 45% and that new voters comprised 13% of the total vote.

In order to win by his recorded vote, Walker needed a 10% advantage in returning 2008 voters and a 20% advantage in net defections. That is highly implausible.

Exit poll oddities

1) A full 5% of voters were not white or black. But their vote is n/a.
2) Philosophy: 13% of liberals voted for Walker?
3) Party ID: 34% Democrat/ 35% Republican in a progressive state?
4) Labor: Just 62% voted for Barrett?
5) Obama preferred by 51-44%, yet Barrett lost the recall by 53.2-46.3%?
6) Barrett only got 81% of would-be Obama voters?
7)Turnout:47% of recall were returning Walker 2010 and 34% Barrett? That’s a 13% difference. In 2010 Walker “won” by 52.2-46.6%.
8) Urban vote: Barrett had just 62% in big cities?

The Ultimate Smoking Gun:300 state presidential exit polls (1988-2008)

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, there were 300 state exit polls, of which 252 red-shifted from the poll to the vote in favor of the Republican and 48 to the Democrat. Assuming zero fraud, approximately 150 would be expected for each. The probability P that 252 would red-shift to the Republican is:
P = 1.3E-34 = Binomdist(62,75,.5,false)^4
P = 1 in 8 billion trillion trillion

The margin of error (MoE) was exceeded in 137 of 300 state exit polls (only 15 would be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is:
P = 7E-80 = Poisson (137, .05*300, false)
P = 1 in 1 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

Of the 137 exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded, 134 moved in favor of the Republicans (only 8 would be expected). Three favored the Democrat. The probability P that 134 out of 300 would favor the Republican is:
P= 5E-115 = Poisson (134, .025*300, false)
P= 1 in 2 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

In the Wisconsin recall Exit Poll notes (following the crosstabs), the pollsters indicate there were 2547 exit poll respondents and that the margin of error (MoE) was +/-4%. Presumably, this includes a 30% cluster factor. But the MoE seems too high, considering the number of respondents.

The theoretical MoE is given by the simple formula: MoE =.98/sqrt(n), where n is the number of respondents. For the recall: MoE = 2.0% = .98/sqrt(2547). It is 2.6% after adding the 30% cluster effect.

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote to within 0.50%. Yet the pollsters claim that the MoE is 4.0%. Why do the pollsters even bother to mention the MoE? It has no meaning since the exit poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote anyway.

If we had unadjusted exit poll data, the margin of error would be applied to determine the interval where the vote share would fall 95% of the time. This is why unadjusted exit polls are necessary. The standard practice of forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote implicitly assumes zero fraud, i.e. the recorded vote is identical to the True Vote. It never is.

The conventional wisdom is very conventional – and very misleading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/wisconsin-recall-vote_n_1572662.html

The NY Times Election site has the FINAL, adjusted exit poll crosstabs.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/05/us/politics/wisconsin-recall-exit-polls.html

About Richard Charnin
In 1965, I graduated from Queens College (NY) with a BA in Mathematics. I later obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. I started out as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer and then moved to Wall Street as a manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for several major investment banks. I consulted in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. In 2004 l began posting weekly "Election Model" projections based on state and national polls. As "TruthIsAll", I have been posting election analysis to determine the True Vote ever since.
View all posts by Richard Charnin