Analyzing Exit Poll Results

It’s important to state up front what data will be collected, what analysis to perform on that data and what constitutes evidence of a serious problem versus random errors in any poll of this nature.

Polling stations allow voters access to the results after the polls are closed when the votes have been tallied.  In Sedgwick County, they will have separate reports printed for the electronic voting machines and the scanned paper ballots.

We will also get a count of the number of provisional ballots collected from the polling location.  Theseballots will not be opened until the voter’s registration is verified and there will never be an official tally of the provision votes for polling location.  But we can look at the results we have for voters who submitted provisional ballots and compare them with the votes that were counted at the polling location.  If there are significant differences, this is evidence of the voter suppression effect of Kris Kobachs voter registration rules.

I have created a general data collection and analysis EXCEL spreadsheet.  Multiple precincts vote at each polling location and the results are reported for each precinct, not the polling location, so I’ve set up a spreadsheet to sum the numbers up and compute the appropriate probabilities.

I will be customizing this EXCEL file for each exit poll location in Kansas, but I am happy to share a general version of this worksheet with anyone who is interested in running an exit poll for their own area.  All you will have to do is input the official results and your exit poll results.    This is an example of of the output.

 

Example Data Analysis
Presidential race Chi-Squared Result:  NA
Candidates Exit Poll Official Results Binomial Probability
Clinton (D) 52 60 0.0638
Trump (R) 38 30 0.0530
Johnson (L) 6 6 0.5593
Stein (G) 2 2 0.5967
Other 2 2 0.5967
Total 100 100

There are two different analyses than can be used in this situation.  The chi-square test will give an exact probability that the actual results differed from what would be expected under the assumption of random chance.  EXCEL has this test as a built in function: CHISQ.TEST.  But the chi-squared test has minimum data requirements which were not met in this example, hence “NA” or Not Applicable as the result of this test.

Since the chi-squared test will not work for every set of possible data, I also show the individual binomial probabilities for each of the candidate.  The minimum probability from this set of five computations is a reasonable approximation to the exact computation using the extension of the binomial distribution and can be easily computed using built-in Excel formula BINOM.DIST.

How to interpret this:

We judge the probability of machine manipulation of the vote by evaluating the probability of our results assuming no manipulation of votes is occurring.  This is referred to as the “null hypothesis”.  All probabilities shown are made under this assumption.  If this probability is above 0.05 (5%), we can reasonably conclude that the differences between the machine vote share and the exit poll vote share are typical of random variation due to the normal errors in the process.

If this value lies between 0.05 and 0.001, raise an eyebrow and give the numbers for that race a little extra scrutiny and consider it in concert with the other exit polling results.

If this values lies below 0.001, that is evidence of fraud.  Personally, I would like to see a recount of any race with results that fall this far from normal.  But only a candidate can request a recount in Kansas.

In this example, I have contrived to show Trump with a questionably low # of votes in the official count compared to the exit poll results.  Hillary has a slightly elevated value.  But these results are not unexpected as the minimum probability of results this far off is above 0.05.

But if the other sites have similar values and they are all benefitting the same candidate, it would be concerning.  If 2 or 3 sites out of 5 show the same beneficiary of the differences, that’s reasonable.  But if 5 out of 5 sites show the same beneficiary, it’s evidence of rigging.

If we see multiple races with low odds and the same slate of candidates are benefiting, we have solid evidence of machine manipulation of our official votes.  If we see only the normal expected errors, then we have solid evidence it is NOT being manipulated.

While a single location and a single race might show evidence of manipulation, savvy cheaters will try to avoid this method of detection by establishing a maximum shift that falls beneath the 0.05 probability results.  But looking at multiple races and sites, we can establish whether even small shifts show evidence of cheating.

We can define a slate of candidates by party and check the probability of getting the results we got using a similar binomial analysis.  Under the null hypothesis of no manipulation, the probability of an error that benefits a candidate is 50%.   There are three races with candidates and five judges we are asking about, for a total of 8 results for each polling location.  Governor Brownback would like to see 4 of the 5 judges lose their jobs and replace them.  We can also presume he supports the Republican Party candidates for President, Senate and Representative.

We will have data from 5 different locations for a total of 40 random samples with approximately 50% probability.  (For example, let X be the number of errors that were the opposite of the Brownback administration preferred candidates. If we have 40 random samples as defined above, the probability of getting errors in the opposite direction of his preferred result is computed with the following excel formula:  BINOMDIST(X, 40, .5, 1)

If this value is extremely low (less than .001), we conclude that the Republican Party has unduly benefited and further investigation would be appropriate.

How to interpret the Provisional Ballot Data:

We cannot know the final count of the provisional ballots collected at a polling location.  They are polled at the county level and only those that are shown to be registered voters are opened and counted.   What we can do is compare the results of the provisional ballots with the other responses to our exit poll.   If there is a major difference between those asked to fill out provisional ballots with the automatically counted votes, we have a measure of the effect of the voter ID laws and if it made a difference to the outcome.

For each race, we can use the chi-square test if we have sufficient data.   Otherwise, we can use the binomial approximation similar to the one used to compare the official count to the exit poll survey results.

electioneering and instructs them regarding what they can and cannot do.  While permission is not required to run an exit poll, we do need permission from the property owner to set up a booth to collect our ballots and provide chairs and shade for our volunteers.  Mainly, we want everyone to know what we are doing to avoid any issues arising on on election day.

How to Run an Exit Poll Part 1

How to Run an Exit Poll Part 2

Creating an Exit Poll Ballot

One thought on “Analyzing Exit Poll Results”

  1. For the future: Paper Ballots Hand Counted and Posted in Precinct in Public on Election Night. New Exit Pollsters. Green Party & Libertarian in debates. And get election rigger Jeffrey W. Dean to flip. We need our Democracy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob-AGgZn44

    Fraction Magic – Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration
    Bev Harris

    Q: Does Fraction Magic always use a USB?
    A: No. It can also be on the computer or use remote access

    Q: Who put it there?
    A: According to programmers and court testimony: a convicted felon; 23 counts on previous computer crimes.

    Q: Name?
    A: Jeffrey W. Dean. Previously employed by Bud Krogh, the former head of White House Plumbers unit under Richard Nixon.

    Jeffrey Dean put some other stuff in there too.
    It is not over.:
    Stand up.
    Let’s make it right.

    Fraction Magic – Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration
    Bev Harris
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob-AGgZn44&feature=player_embedded
    ………

    Are you a lawyer or do you know any lawyers?
    via email from: http://trustvote.org/
    The Institute of American Democracy and Election Integrity

    Help Make Our Elections Worthy of Our Trust ! A Brilliant, New, Inexpensive Way to Create Trackable, Publicly Verifiable Elections Results!

    A few days ago, we told you about the problem of fractionalizing votes. I mentioned that we would be sending you a letter with a really good solution that has worked once before and could work again. Although votes can be fractionalized while adding them up, the ballot images pictures taken of the ballots can not be reduced to fractions. The solution is to issue temporary restraining orders in swing state counties so that the ballot images can be preserved. The act of issuing TRO’s will also be a deterrent in itself to fractionalizing votes in an effort to steal the election. This process could apply to all elections, presidential, state and county elections as well as bond issues and propositions.

    If you are interested in getting involved in making this happen, if you are a lawyer and if you know a lawyer or lawyers who might also be interested in preserving ballot images using TRO’s, please contact us at TrustVote.org as soon as possible, as we will need to issue these TRO’s for the most part BEFORE the election. And, as you might expect, organizing this effort will require money. So please DONATE WHATEVER YOU CAN to support to fight election fraud in our country.

    THANK YOU SO MUCH on behalf of TrustVote and our challenged democracy!

    Also here is the analysis by John Brakey of AUDIT-AZ of How the California Presidential Primary was , Stripped and Flipped: http://electionnightmares.com/

    CAN VOTERS DO TO RECTIFY THESE PROBLEMS:

    Election activist John Brakey and attorney William Risner assert that destroying ballot images is against Federal law: Federal law 52 U.S.C § 20701 requiring retention of federal election materials, provides a penalty of up to $1,000 fine and one year in jail for premature destruction of that material (was formerly 42 U.S.C § 1974).

    For the November elections, Brakey and Risner recommend the following strategy:

    • File a public record request (ASAP) asking for ballot images for the last and the next election. The request should include other critical documents like the Cast Vote Record (CVR). We can provide a draft of what to request.

    • If ballot images are or have been destroyed then file a special action Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is usually easy to request.

    • If they refuse your public records request for “ballot images,” then file another special action in the form of a Mandamus Act. When you win they have to pay all expenses and legal fees.

    Additional efforts that may be necessary and are suggested by AUDIT-AZ member Mickey Duniho, a retired former NSA Cryptologist for 37 years. His recommendations are being added to our TRO.

    • Do not transfer results from the DS850 to the central count computer until election day;

    • Print the cast vote record serial number on each ballot so that an audit can link back to the original ballot as per how the system was federal certified by EAC;

    • Mark every storage box containing ballots with the range of serial numbers contained in the box, so that an audit can easily find the box containing a ballot of interest.
    ……..

    http://blackboxvoting.org/

    http://markcrispinmiller.com/

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/

    http://trustvote.org/

    http://showmethevotes.org/
    How to run, create ballots, and analyze exit polling to check truthfulness of ballot counts reported

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Are you human? *