Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

Home   »  News  »  Election 2004: Theories and ...  »  Analysis of the 2004 Presidential ...


Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election
Exit Poll Discrepancies

US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project

National Election Data Archive Project
March 31st, 2005

Click for a copy of the complete report  (.PDF format)



 


Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3%
[1].  According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.

In other words, by random chance alone, it could not have happened.  But it did.

Two alternatives remain.  Either something was wrong with the exit polling, or something was wrong with the vote count.

Exit polls have been used to verify the integrity of elections in the Ukraine, in Latin America, in Germany, and elsewhere.  Yet in November 2004, the U.S. exit poll discrepancy was much more than normal exit poll error (and similar to that of the invalid Ukraine election.[2])

In a recent survey of US members of the world's oldest and largest computer society, The Association for Computing Machinery, 95% opposed software driven un-auditable voting machines[3], of the type that now count at least 30% of U.S. votes.  Today's electronic vote-counting machines are not required to include basic safeguards that would prevent and detect machine or human caused errors, be they innocent or deliberate.[4] 

The consortium that conducted the presidential exit polls, Edison/Mitofsky, issued a report in January suggesting that the discrepancy between election results and exit polls occurred because Bush voters were more reticent than Kerry voters in response to pollsters.

The authors of this newly released scientific study "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Poll Discrepancies" consider this "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis to be highly implausible, based on extensive analysis of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data.  They conclude, “The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.”  

 

A state-by-state analysis of the discrepancy between exit polls and official election results shows highly improbable skewing of the election results, overwhelmingly biased towards the President.

The report concludes, “We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.

 

An executive summary of the report by Josh Mitteldorf of Temple University is available at: http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_summary.pdf

Contributors and Supporters of the Report include:

Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department

Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania

Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin

Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah

Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame

Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University

Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University

Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University

Jonathan Simon, J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project

Ron Paul Baiman, PhD Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago

 

About US Count Votes

US Count Votes is a Utah non-profit corporation.  It is seeking financial support to complete its "National Election Data Archive" project.  The goal of the project is to apply statistical and analytic methods to investigate the integrity of the 2004 elections and to provide for timely verification of the integrity of future elections..

 


Press Contact: Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes, Vice President bruce@uscountvotesorg


Original Materials are archived at:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_MitofskyEdison.pdf
Response to the Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report
http://exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

The Verifier Map

How do Americans cast their ballots? See the Verifier Map for detailed information on voting systems used in each state and county in recent elections.

voting equipment used in earlier elections (2004/2006)


Get E-Mail Alerts




Announcements

August 26, 2010
On Indias Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in RutgersNewark Law Schools Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project



  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    VerifiedVoting.org, Inc., is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, VerifiedVoting.org, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to VerifiedVoting.org.


    Privacy    Site Map