"Finally, ESI examined whether the proportions of the vote that Bush
received in each precinct, in 2000 and 2004, were related to the difference
between the reported vote and exit poll results for those same precincts. If
systematic fraud or error in vote counting occurred in 2004 but not in 2000,
Bush would have done significantly better in those precincts in 2004 {than in
2000}, and we would see larger differences between the reported vote and the
exit poll in those precincts."

The premise is that there was ZERO fraud in 2000. 
Umm, really?

OK, let's do a little model to test it out.

Assume this hypothetical example:
1) 10 precincts comprised the total electorate.
2) Fraud accounted for 70% of the exit poll discrepancies in 2000 and 2004.
3) Bush's vote declined in 5 of the 10 precincts from 2000 to 2004.
					

	Bush 2000					Bush 2004													
Prct	Rec	Exit	Fraud	Fraud	TRUE		Chg	Rec	Exit	Fraud	Fraud	TRUE
	Vote	%Dev	%Dev	Dev	Vote		2000	Vote	%Dev	%Dev	Dev	Vote
1	55%	2%	70%	1.40%	53.60%		-1%	54%	4%	70%	2.80%	51.20%
2	40%	2%	70%	1.40%	38.60%		-1%	39%	4%	70%	2.80%	36.20%
3	49%	1%	70%	0.70%	48.30%		3%	52%	3%	70%	2.10%	49.90%
4	44%	1%	70%	0.70%	43.30%		4%	48%	3%	70%	2.10%	45.90%
5	53%	1%	70%	0.70%	52.30%		-4%	49%	3%	70%	2.10%	46.90%
6	58%	1%	70%	0.70%	57.30%		5%	63%	3%	70%	2.10%	60.90%
7	40%	2%	70%	1.40%	38.60%		6%	46%	4%	70%	2.80%	43.20%
8	57%	1%	70%	0.70%	56.30%		-1%	56%	3%	70%	2.10%	53.90%
9	45%	1%	70%	0.70%	44.30%		3%	48%	3%	70%	2.10%	45.90%
10	48%	1%	70%	0.70%	47.30%		-1%	47%	3%	70%	2.10%	44.90%

	48.90%	1.30%	70.00%	0.91%	47.99%		1.30%	50.20%	3.30%	70.00%	2.31%	47.89%

												
Summarizing:

In 2000:			        In 2004:			
Bush LOST the election with 48.90%	Bush WON the election with 50.20%				
Bush LOST the TRUE Vote with 47.99%	Bush LOST the TRUE Vote with 47.89% 				
Bush won 4 precincts, lost 6		Bush won 4 precincts, lost 6				
												

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.

They can attack your premises: but not the other way around.  Comprendes tu?

"We are the ones we've been waiting for...." The Elders, Hopi Nation.

Past liberal, past progressive, all the way to full blown dissident.... Me

The fact that the table logic is similar just shows that REAL analysts think
alike.

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.

very stinky..

Register ALL the People! Count ALL the Votes! Make the process Transparent and Verifiable! And do it NOW!

Good counterexample.

Unbelievably, I've been X'd out of DU for no apparent reason. I didn't violate
any of the rules that I am aware of, and have avoided making any personal
attacks or name calling for decades, so I'm not sure how they justify locking
me out.

Febble has complete freedom at DU to tell as many twisted distortions of the
truth as she wants to - without me around to point out that the things she says
aren't quite the way it is.

Or I wonder if the moderators are protecting ESI - the Election Science
Institute, which has accepted much funding from the democratics.

It is amazing how the truth and real facts are censored on the DU.

Well, with someone constantly attacking and twisting the truth at DU, it is
impossible to get anything productive done there, so the progressive
independent will be much more positive and productive and not censure the real
facts.

Anyway, your counterexample is terrific TIA.  I believe that the number of
counterexamples to the illogical ESI/Mitofsky/Liddle hypothesis is countably
infinite.

I need to call more press and try to talk to them about this.  Please help me
do that if you have time.

Kathy

I long have known the DU "Democratic Underground" is controlled by DLC stooges.

And they love stealing elections too, so exit poll evidence is off-limits. It could expose the whole plan to steal the elections for Hillary and Schumer later.....

OK? See what I mean?

The reason TIA's post is so wide is that TIA has a large number of trailing blanks on the header line for the table. Those trailing blanks, together with the 'plaintext' option TIA chose for posting (to get fixed width fonts for table alignment), caused the post's text block to be wider than most browser windows, apparently including yours.

Hope this helps.

(On edit...)
What's interesting to me is that PI's forum software apparently causes this option to be inherited by replies to such posts, which would seem to be why the replies in this thread (including yours) were posted in fixed width fonts with line breaks in strange places. Not noticing, I guess folks didn't change the option when posting.

"Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results." — Margaret Atwood
"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion." — Lord Acton

What is their motivation?  Why are they supporting Bush, which is what they do
when they provode "unsolicited" testimonials justifying his false
voctory?

I can understand E-M caving.  Can you imagine having the full weight of the
power structure come down on you and tell you, "Fix the damn poll, I don't
care what the fuck time it is!"  But ESI, they volunteer for this.

It's not a matter of credibility it is a factual testimonial to lack of
credibility.

Who listens to them anywqy?  They're just there to provide cover...that's all.

Obrador for President Site