The National Exit Poll question #1) "Who did you vote for in the LAST
election" is IRRELEVANT. The only question that matters is #2) "Who
did you JUST vote for?" We will illustrate this by looking at the 2000,
2004 and 2006 elections. 

Question #1 is irrelevant because the STATED RESPONSE is irrelevant in
determining the weightings. The WEIGHTS are a function of the prior election
VOTE COUNT which are obviously known. The weightings for the retrospective
question are pre-determined. The only adjustments which need to be made to them
are 1) reducing the prior election vote count by the number of voters who DIED
since the last election, and 2) accounting for the number of respondents who
DID NOT VOTE (DNV) in the prior election. 

Therefore, the actual responses of those who voted to question #1 is NOT a
factor. We just need to know IF they voted in the last election, not WHO they
voted for. That's because if respondents are a representative SAMPLE (and the
poll is truly scientific), than the HISTORICAL WEIGHTINGS MUST NOT BE EXCEEDED.


IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BUSH 2004 WEIGHTING TO IMPLY THAT THERE
WERE MORE RETURNING BUSH 2000 VOTERS THEN WERE STILL ALIVE TO VOTE.  

The ONLY REASON to ask Question #1 is to CATEGORIZE the responses for Question
#2. It logically follows that since the question is IRRELEVANT, the VERACITY of
the respondents to question #1 is ALSO IRRELEVANT. It makes NO DIFFERENCE
whether the respondent LIED or FORGOT when he said that he voted for Bush when
he actually voted for Gore - or vice-versa. That is simply because his response
CANNOT CHANGE THE 2000 VOTE COUNT. IT'S A HISTORICAL FACT. 

Therefore, the only RELEVANT RESPONSE is the answer to QUESTION #2: WHO DID YOU
JUST VOTE FOR?

I will use the 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares in conjunction with the
historical weights in order to calculate an estimate of Kerry's TRUE vote.
Using these weights, I also calculate the percentage of Gore 2000 voters that
Bush needed in order to win 14 million new voters between 2000 and 2004.
Finally, I calculate the probability of achieving that percentage.

In 2000:
Approximately 104.3mm voted.
Gore had 51.0mm (41.70% of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004).
Bush had 50.46mm (41.25%)
Nader had 2.88mm (2.36%).

In 2004:
Approximately 122.3mm voted.
Bush had 62.04mm (50.74%)
Kerry had 59.03mm (48.28%)
Others had 0.96mm (0.98%)

In 2000, the annual U.S. death rate was 0.87%, or 3.5% for the four year period
between elections. Subtracting 3.6mm (3.5%) from the 2000 vote totals, 
approximately 100.7mm voters were still alive in 2004. Subtracting 100.7mm from
the total 2004 recorded vote (122.3mm) gives the MINIMUM number of those 2004
voters who did not vote (DNV) in 2000: 21.6mm. 

Voted in 2004 
(assumes 100% 2000 voter turnout)
DNV  21.6mm (17.7%)
Gore 49.2mm (40.2%)
Bush 48.7mm (39.8%)
Nader 2.8mm  (2.3%)
------------------
Total 122.3mm (100%)

The above totals assume 100% turnout (100.7mm) of 2000 voters. Obviously this
did not occur, so there had to be MORE than 21.6mm DNV and FEWER than 100.7mm
returning voters. Therefore, Bush must have gained MORE than 13.6mm new voters
from 2000 to get his 62mm. However, for this analysis, we'll assume full 2000
voter turnout in calculating 2004 vote shares.

Example 1: 
Assuming the 12:22am preliminary NEP (13047 respondents) vote shares and a 
full 100% turnout of 2000 voters, Kerry was the winner by 6.8mm votes
(63.9-57.2), or 52.3% of the vote.

Voted2k
.......Votes Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other
DNV	21.6	17.7%	57%	41%	2%
Gore	49.2	40.2%	91%	8%	1%
Bush	48.7	39.8%	10%	90%	0%
Nader	2.8	2.3%	71%	21%	8%
					
Total  122.3 100%	52.3%	46.8%	0.9%
Total	122.3  100%	63.9	57.2	1.2
								
Example 2:
Assuming the 2:04pm Final NEP (13047 respondents) vote shares and 100% turnout
of 2000 voters, Kerry was the winner by 2.8mm votes, or 50.9%.

Voted2k 
.........Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other
DNV    17.7%	54%	45%	1%
Gore   40.2%	90%	10%	0%
Bus    39.8%	9%	91%	0%
Nader   2.3%	71%	21%	8%
			
Total  100%	50.9%	48.7%	0.4%
Votes  122.3  62.3	59.5	0.44

We will next derive a vote share scenario to match the 2004 recorded vote:
(Bush 62.04mm, Kerry 59.27mm, Other 0.96mm) using trial-and-error. Then we can
calculate the probability of Bush increasing his 2000 vote total BY AT LEAST
13.3mm (62.0-48.7). We keep 12:22am NEP vote shares constant, except for the
Gore vote share for Bush. This share is incremented until we reach the recorded
vote. It turns out that Bush needed 15.9% Gore voters to achieve his mandate,
assuming the other vote shares are unchanged. The probability of the 7.9%
increase is then be calculated. Of course, there are many other combinations of
vote shares which would achieve the reported vote, but they are ALL extremely
implausible with near-zero probability.

How Voted in 2000
(Vote shares changed to match recorded vote) 				

......Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other
DNV	17.7%	57%	41.0%	2.0%
Gore	40.2%	84%	15.9%  0.1% <<< changed vote share
Bush	39.8%	 7%	92.0%	1.0%
Other	2.3%	71%	21.0%	8.0%

Calculated:
Pct	100%	48.28% 50.74% 0.98%
Vote   122.27  59.03 62.04  1.20

Actual:
Pct	100%	48.28% 50.74% 0.98%
Vote   122.27  59.03 62.04  1.20

Note:
The MoE for n=3200 sample-size is
MoE	=1.96*SQRT((p*(1-p)/N)
MoE	=1.96*SQRT((0.08*.92)/3200)
MoE	=0.94%
Assuming a 50% exit poll cluster effect:
MoE   =1.79%

The probability of the 7.9% discrepancy between the 15.9% Gore for Bush
scenario and the 12:22am 8% vote share is: 1.78E-15
or 1 in 562 TRILLION.

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?a...



These FACTS are never discussed in the media.
- election fraud
- undecided voters break for the challenger, especially if the incumbent is unpopular. Bush was at 48%.
- Many newly registered voters are not included in LV (likely voter) polls.
- Since 1988, Democrats have won 60-70% of new voters. In 2008, Obama had 71%+.
- MILLIONS of mostly (70-80%) Democratic votes are uncounted in every election
- The 2004/2006/2008 Final National Exit Polls indicated there were millions of returning phantom Bush voters from the prior election (more than were alive).
- The Final National and State exit polls are always FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote.
- By definition, the RECORDED VOTE never reflects the TRUE VOTE since millions of votes are UNCOUNTED in EVERY election.
- Uncounted votes alone provide overwhelming evidence that elections were stolen in 1968, 1988, 2000 and 2004.
- 1968: 6 million net uncounted votes.
Nixon won the recorded vote by 500,000.
- 1988: 10.6 million net uncounted votes. Bush won the recorded vote by 7m.
- 2000: 5.4 million net uncounted votes. Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000.
- 2004: Nearly 4 million uncounted votes.
Bush won the recorded vote by 3.0 million.
Kerry won the True Vote by 10m.
Approximately 5 million were switched from Kerry to Bush on UNVERIFIABLE voting machines.

- 2006 midterms: Democrats won by more than double the recorded 52-46%% margin.
10-20 House seats were stolen.

- 2008: Obama won by more than double his recorded 9.5m margin.

1988-2008: the average Democratic TRUE VOTE margin was reduced from 10% to a 4% RECORDED MARGIN by Election Fraud.

VOTER FRAUD was virtually non-existent.

if the question posed was [b]Did you vote in 2000?[/b] as opposed to [b]Who did
you vote for in 2000?[/b]

I only ask because otherwise I fail to see why the artifice is even needed.

-Mr Nice Guy