Ah, an article was recently produced in the Rolling Stone's magazine with the titled emblazoned "
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Rehashing the same old conspiracy theory back in December 2004 that it was, again, the Republicans who helped steal (or prevented) the votes. So, what was the first
red flag before I began reading it? What else but the author who wrote that piece,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a rabid liberal. So, I read it anyway as much as I wanted to flatten my thumb with a hammer.
Now, some in the Deaf community such as the one in
DeafDC.com who read the piece are absolutely convinced. Convinced I tell ya! (Did anyone read the Edison/Mitofsky report at all?) That the 2004 national election was indeed (in a deep, rumbling voice) stolen from John F. Kerry who would have been the next president (let me laugh for a moment here). Never mind the fact that RFK Jr mused about exit pollings and why it didn't reflect the voting results believing that exit polling is completely reliable. Reliable? Oh, please! And never mind the fact that RFK Jr never produced any proof that votes were actually stolen, just lots of citations and quotes. In my deaf/hh world, I'd rather see proof than to scream about some the same old rehashed conspiracy theory that reeks of denial that continued even from the bitter sweet 2000 national election when Bush won his first national election to become the next U.S. President.
Now, the biggest puzzle is how and when exit polls ever became an exact science? I know that mathematics is an exact science but exit polling is certainly not since it deals with many variables as to why people of opinions who don't mind coming forward or don't mind being approached by pollsters. But Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes that exit polling has become accurate enough so that it should predict the correct outcome of any national election, here or abroad. Problem is that answering Exit Poll questions and the actual voting are two different things. There are many reasons why exit polls will not match voters turnout as reported in the
Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 report prepared by the Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International:
The exit poll estimates in the 2004 general election overstated John Kerry’s share of the vote nationally and in many states. There were 26 states in which the estimates producedby the exit poll data overstated the vote for John Kerry by more than one standard error, and there were four states in which the exit poll estimates overstated the vote for George W. Bush by more than one standard error. The inaccuracies in the exit poll estimates were not due to the sample selection of the polling locations at which the exit polls were conducted. We have not discovered any systematic problem in how the exit poll data were collected and processed. Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote count and the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has found no systematic differences for precincts using touch screen and optical scan voting equipment. We say this because these differences are similar to the differences for punch card voting equipment, and less than the difference for mechanical voting equipment.
Our detailed analysis by polling location and by interviewer has identified several factors that may have contributed to the size of the Within Precinct Error that led to the inaccuracies in the exit poll estimates. Some of these factors are within our control while others are not.
It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey. In addition there are interactions between respondents and interviewers that can contribute to differential non-response rates. We can identify some factors that appear to have contributed, even in a small way, to the discrepancy. These include:
• Distance restrictions imposed upon our interviewers by election officials at the state and local level
• Weather conditions which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations
• Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in our sample
• Polling locations with a large number of total voters where a smaller portion of voters was selected to be asked to fill out questionnaires
• Interviewer characteristics such as age, which were more often related to precinct error this year than in past elections
We plan further analysis on the following factors:
• Interviewer training and election day procedures
• Interviewing rate calculations
• Interviewer characteristics
• Precinct characteristics
• Questionnaire length and design
We also suggest the following changes for future exit polls:
• Working to improve cooperation with state and local election officials
• Improvements in interviewing training procedures
• Changes in our procedures for hiring, recruiting and monitoring interviewers
Even with these improvements, differences in response rates between Democratic and Republican voters may still occur in future elections. However, we believe that these steps will help to minimize the discrepancies.
If exit polls are "accurate" as RFK Jr have been saying in his article throughout, then why the needed improvements on exit polling suggested by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International?
Always a caveat in any exit polling as everybody knows except for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who expouses the credibility of Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International's exit polling as being "accurate" by citing
Mexico's election results in conjuction to its "accurate" exit polling results. Is it any wonder that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. never, not once, put down the very caveats placed visibly at the beginning of the report by the Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International?
Now, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. never once produced any evidence to the fact that 357,000 voters in Ohio were prevented from casting their ballots or have their votes counted -- enough so to have put John Kerry in the White House. No proof but numerical references to citations and quotes.
Let's
see NPR from last week that discussed the very same topic but a week earlier before the article came out:
May 22, 2006 · Marc Rosenbaum, a senior editor at NPR and one of the guys who pays lots of attention to polls, just got back into town from a conference on polling and sent this in:
One last thing: There also was a session called, "Who Really Won the Election 2004?" This was an opportunity for the cyber-active bloggers who think the Ohio vote was somehow fraudulent to present their best case. They didn't. Their presentations were confusing, if not incoherent to this listener, and they all seemed to boil down to one complaint: namely, that the vote totals didn't match the exit polls. The problem with that argument is that if you can give good reasons why the exit polls were wrong in Ohio (and there are many), their entire complaint disappears.
I think it all boils down to the fact that we have a "
Rolling Stoned" Robert F. Kennedy Jr whose major premise is based on a supposedly very accurate exit polling results and the mismatch against the voting results which suggest "inexplicable discrepancies" between exit polls and actual vote counts that brings up this whole voters fraud conspiracy theory brouhahahaha.
RFK Jr's article is all wet. Be sure to flush it after you're done reading it.