Conspiracy Theories and Mathematical Probabilities Go here for original
Wisconsin Recall: The adjusted Final Exit Poll was forced to match an unlikely recorded vote
Richard Charnin |
June 6, 2012
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 a
solid 7% margin and 173,000 votes. Why the big red shift?
Why did the media not provide the actual unadjusted exit poll data (the “crosstabs”)? Was it because they knew that they would have to adjust the poll to match a bogus recorded vote and did not want the public to view the impossible “adjustments”?
The solid 53.2-46.3% Walker win was more than implausible since voter
turnout exceeded that of the 2010 election. Walker “won” the recorded
vote 52.2-46.6% in a supposed low-turnout election. But who turned out
in droves in 2012? Democrats and independents who wanted Walker out. The
grossly unpopular Walker could not have done better than he did in 2010
– only worse.
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
robocalls, election workers discouraging voters from using paper
ballots, etc. But we are supposed to believe that they would not
covertly program the voting machines to flip votes from Barrett to
Walker in cyberspace? And even if the machines are manufactured and
programmed by right-wing organizations using unverifiable code.
The conventional wisdom is very conventional – and very misleading:
The NY Times Election site has the FINAL, adjusted exit poll crosstabs:
Here are just a few 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) 47% voted for Walker in 2010 and just 34% for Barrett?
Walker only “won” by 52.2-46.6% in 2010.
8) Urban vote: Barrett gets just 62% in the big cities?
If we assume an equal 75% Obama and McCain voter turnout in the
recall, a 50/50 split in new and returning third party voters, then in
order to match the recorded vote, Walker needed 28% of returning Obama
voters while Barrett had just 5% of returning McCain voters. That is a
very implausible net 23% defection of Obama voters.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDRwcWRPTUZoZk53YUlxOEVMT0FnX3c#gid=32
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDRwcWRPTUZoZk53YUlxOEVMT0FnX3c#gid=32
The True Vote Model indicates that Barrett should have won easily –
assuming the caveat of a fair election. But the election was stolen. Its
still the same old story – a case of do or die.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment