Massachusetts exit poll vs results

Homepage | Forums | Topics In Depth | Election Fraud | Massachusetts exit poll vs results

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #287351
      JonLP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,496

      https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/?fbclid=IwAR1qWNr0nhAF9pBhdZlXfc2GtYhFnrCI6OVlHb8IumY83PUkFVMMcNl_sAI

      Biden had the biggest gains while Sanders & Warren had the biggest drop.

      Let this radicalize you rather than lead you to despair - Mariame Kaba

      Like many public systems, GOP want to rip the battery out + say the whole car doesn’t work, so they can sell it for parts - AOC

    • #287361
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 20,613
      Please share this article:

      Table updated with latest vote counts on March 8, 2020. Text edited accordingly and for clarity.

      By Theodore de Macedo Soares

      The 2020 Massachusetts Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. As in the 2016 Massachusetts primary between candidates Sanders and Clinton, disparities greatly exceed the exit poll’s margin of error. Sanders won Massachusetts in the exit poll and lost it in the computer count.

      The discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for Sanders and Biden totaled 8.4%— double the 4.0% margin of error (95% CI) for their exit poll differences. Warren’s and Biden’s discrepancies also totaled 8.4%, again double the margin of error (95% CI) for their exit poll differences. . These discrepancies replicate the total discrepancy of 8.0% favoring Clinton in the 2016 Massachusetts Democratic Party primary between her and Sanders. This time two progressive candidates exhibit the same discrepancies now favoring Biden representing the establishment’s choice.

      Presidential candidates Biden’s and Bloomberg’s vote counts exhibited the largest disparity from their exit poll projections. Biden’s unobservable computer-generated vote totals represented a 16.2% increase of his projected exit poll share. Given the 1,397,222 voters (97% reporting to date) in this election, he gained approximately 65,200 more votes than projected by the exit poll. Bloomberg increased his vote share by 29% and approximately 36,900 more votes than projected. Their gain came largely at the expense of candidates Sanders and Warren whose combined vote counts were 104,300 less than projected by the exit poll.

      Noteworthy is the fact that the 2016 Massachusetts Republican Party exit poll taken at the same time and at the same precincts as the Democratic Party primary, and also with a crowded field of five candidates, was matched almost perfectly by the computer count—varying by less than one percent for each candidate.

      Exit polls are widely recognized—such as by, for example, the United States Agency for International Development  (USAID)—as a means for checking the validity of vote counts. The U.S. has financed exit polls in other countries to “ensure free and fair” elections.

      The United States remains one of the few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its elections. Countries such as Germany,[ii] NorwayNetherlandsFrance,[iii] Canada,[iv] United KingdomIrelandSpainPortugalItalyDenmarkSwedenFinland and many other countries protect the integrity and trust of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots.[v]

      [1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020 at 8:00 PM. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. Number of EP respondents: 1,394. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the results above.

      [2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (97% reporting) updated on March 8, 2020 and published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 1,397,222

      [3] The difference between the exit poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, candidate Biden, reported percentage/proportion of the total vote increased by 4.7% compared to his exit poll share.

      [4] This column shows the percentage increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two).  Shown only for candidates with 4% or more share in the exit poll.

      [5] This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) of the exit poll (EP) differences between candidate Biden and each of the other candidate’s EP results. The MOE , for example, between Biden and Sanders is 4.0% and the MOE between Biden and Warren is 3.9%.  For simplicity MOE not shown for candidates with less than 4% share in the EP.  MOEs calculated at 95% confidence interval (CI) according to multinomial formula in:  Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised February 2007. Available at:  https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf 

      [6] The disparities between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote counts comparing Biden and each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference of 4.7%.). Disparities for candidates Sanders and Warren are double their respective MOE. For example, candidate Biden’s unverified computerized vote count exceeded his EP projected vote proportion by 4.7% while Sander’s computerized count understated his EP projected vote proportion by 3.8% for at total discrepancy of 8.4%. This 8.4% disparity, greatly exceeding the 4.0% margin of error based on their exit poll proportions, is statistically significant and it cannot be explained by the MOE.


      ENDNOTES

       Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.

      [ii] In 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that every important aspect of an election must be observable by the public and thus “meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections.” The Court explicitly ruled that no amount of voting machine testing, security requirements, and licensing procedures can compensate for this constitutional requirement.  With this ruling, Germany abandoned inherently unobservable computerized vote counting and reverted to the hand-counting of every ballot in the precincts in which they were cast and in the plain view of the public.

      The court also noted that while vote fraud with hand-counted ballots would be easy to detect, “programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines can be recognized only with difficulty.”

      [iii] During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities) were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting machines. In the 2012 elections only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French government desires a total ban on their use.

      [v] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.

      [iv] In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by hand-counted paper ballots.  Some provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See herehere and here.



      Massachusetts 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll. Published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night.

      Note: The exit poll vote proportions for each candidate was derived from the gender category. Candidate’s share of the male vote was multiplied with the total male proportion and added to the candidate’s proportion of the female vote multiplied with the total female vote to arrive at the candidate’s exit poll share in the state.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #287364
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 20,613

      @jonlp In light of ongoing developments, I think it might be convenient for all of us to put stories on  this topic in one place if we can remember to do it. We can compile an archive on the 2020 Democratic primary election fraud as regards to electronic voting machines and scanners are concerned. Who knows? Maybe someone will find it useful one day in a good way.

      Truth has a power of its own sometimes, especially when it’s on the side of justice.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

      • #287368
        JonLP
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,496

        And thank you for posting the text.

        Let this radicalize you rather than lead you to despair - Mariame Kaba

        Like many public systems, GOP want to rip the battery out + say the whole car doesn’t work, so they can sell it for parts - AOC

    • #287366
      Mr. Mickeys Mom
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 5,746

      So, unbelievable cheating going on there… Biden andBloomberg vote count… exhibited the largest disparity from their exit poll projections… Biden’s unobservable computer-generated vote totals represented a 16.2% increase of his projected exit poll share.

      Cheating cannot be tolerated, so whatchagonnado to those Massholes?  Will we be facing the same corruption here in PA?

      Hell, no... I'm not giving up...

      • #287388
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 20,613

        @mrmickeysmom It has been a consistent pattern. In all the states with an uninterrupted paper trail throughout the voting and vote-counting process, the actual results were within the margin of error of the exit polls. Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota. Bernie won the popular vote in all three, in spite of blatant cheating by the Democratic Party in Iowa.

        Bernie seriously overperformed in California, enough that he won it in spite of the rigging, but did not get as many delegates as he should have because of it.

        You’re right. It’s in-our-faces, it’s outrageous, and few are even mentioning it. So far I’ve seen only Saajar Enjeti and Tim Black. Our international voting rights are being violated right now, and both our press and our politicians pretend that’s not a thing.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #287394
      joentokyo
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,026

      Surely you do not mean to suggest that the Democratic party apparatus would cheat?!!

      “A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves” ~ French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987)

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.