Exit Poll Results – Machine Vote Counts were Altered in S.E. Kansas

The Show Me The Votes Foundation sponsored five citizens’ exit polls in S.E. Kansas to assess the accuracy of machine vote counts.  The results of these citizens exit polls provide tangible evidence of election fraud in the presidential race.  I designed the exit polls explicitly so they would provide evidence of election fraud should any be present. The only better evidence would be an audit showing the discrepancies in the actual ballots.  But audits of the voting machine results are not allowed in these Kansas counties.

Exit polls – taken as people are leaving the polling place – are extremely accurate at capturing the vote share of candidates. Staffed by volunteers from the polls open to their close, we achieved outstanding response rates. These are shown in the table below.



eta: after final counting, the SW Wichita votes for Trump changed from 609 to  611.  

Polling Station and Exit Poll Results

Polling Station and Exit Poll Results

A rule of thumb is that 2% or larger difference in vote share between the official results and the exit poll is evidence of election fraud worth investigating.  We had such excellent response rates at some of our sites that differences significantly smaller than 2% are considered suspect in some races.

In addition, we can take into account the overall composition of differences between the official results and the exit poll statistics for each site.  For example, at the Wellington polling site in Sumner County, all Republican candidates had lower vote share in the machine counts than in the exit polling results.  This consistency is suspicious even though the differences may be small.

The exit poll results indicate that our machine generated counts are being manipulated. Polling sites in Sedgwick and Cowley counties were manipulated for the benefit of some candidates, most notably Trump at all four of those sites.  Results in Sumner County appear to be manipulated to the detriment of Republican candidates – but not necessarily to the benefit of Democrat Candidates.  Libertarians performed better in the machine counts for both the Senate and the 4th District races than exit polls indicated for all five sites.  These differences are not sizable enough to alter the outcome of most races, but they are consistent and larger than expected by chance alone.  I’ll post more about those results as I do a more detailed analysis for each polling location.

Presidential Race Analysis:

Votes for Hillary Clinton were shifted to Donald Trump in four of the five polling locations we surveyed, Sumner being the exception.  This chart shows approximately 2% to 3% of the machine votes were shifted from Clinton to Trump at those sites, adding 4% to 6% of the vote share to the difference between them to benefit Trump.   The other candidates show only normal error rates.


Machine Votes and Exit Poll Vote Share Differences
Machine Votes and Exit Poll Vote Share Differences

Figure 1 –  This graph shows the difference between the machine vote share and the exit poll vote share  for each candidate at each site.  Positive values show that the machine count benefited that candidate.  Negative numbers indicate a loss compared with the Exit Poll results.

Sites in Sedgwick and Cowley Counties show a distinct bias with the machine counts siphoning votes from Clinton and benefiting Trump.  Sumner County exit poll results for the Clinton and Trump were not statistically significantly different from the machine counts for Sumner County.

Since Trump won Kansas with 54% of the vote to Hillary’s 36%, even assuming this shift held across Kansas (it didn’t), it was well below Trump’s margin of victory, so this manipulation of votes did not alter the outcome. Still, it is disturbing evidence that the machine vote counts are being altered. In other states, which use similar equipment, manipulation at this level could have changed who won the Presidency.

Statistical Details

I computed the exact probability of each candidate getting the vote share they received in our exit poll given the official counts for that polling location.  This was computed using the Hypergeometric probability distribution, which takes into account both the size of our exit poll sample and the number of people who cast votes at that polling location on Election Day.

This probability – or p-value – is the exact computation of the probability of getting our exit poll results assuming no election fraud occurred.  The p-values for the different presidential candidates at each of the five exit poll sites are given in the table  below.

P-values for Exit Poll results of Machine Votes in Presidential race
P-values for Exit Poll results of Machine Votes in Presidential race

The p-value represents the level of concern about the official results given our exit poll results with 1.0 indicating everything’s normal, nothing of interest here and zero indicating Red Alert  Danger Will Robinson! Danger! The computed p-values always fall somewhere in-between.

The probabilities for Johnson and Stein  are all quite reasonable and raise no serious alarms regarding the accuracy of their vote counts.  The probabilities for Clinton and Trump, on the other hand, are low enough to sound alarms for four of the five polling locations.

These exit poll results more than justify a call to audit the voting records and a profound skepticism in the results of machine counted votes.

The Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) Model is Validated as a Sign of Election Fraud

The math underlying this model dictates that this trend should level off horizontally, not start moving in the opposite direction.  It means the trend is not random chance, but due to a specific cause correlated with precinct size. It is such unanticipated trends as revealed by this type of graph that motivated me to look more closely into our vote-counting process, eventually leading to conducting the exit polls in this past election.

cvs-pres-sedgwick-countyThis is CVS graph for Sedgwick County. It shows Trump getting an increase of ~2% of the total vote share and Clinton losing that same amount from their respective inflection points at around 93,000 cumulative votes.  These exit poll results vindicate the use of the cumulative vote share model in assessing probability of election fraud.



Exit Polling Report

We ran a total of five exit polls Tuesday, three in Wichita.  We were outside, so we were hoping for fair weather.  Although the morning started out damp and dreary, it was nice most of the day, albeit a bit chilly after dark.  Setting up to be operating at 6:00 and running until the close of polls made for an exhausting day although I managed a nap in the early afternoon.  Everything went fairly smoothly at all locations.  In SE Wichita, we gave away 10 dozen donuts before 9:00 am with candy after that to bribe voters to talk with us.  I had to make a run for more candy at 4:00, but no major impediments or problems at the S.E. location.

The most interesting thing that happened was regarding a young black woman who had declined to participate in our exit poll.  Later that evening, near to the polls closing, she was back.  Apparently her mama had voted there early that day and filled out our survey.  She had insisted her daughter return to do so. I was delighted!  That young woman has a mama who cares about her and about making her voice heard by voting.  I wanted to thank her and tell her she’s an awesome mom!  But I was too busy handing out survey forms to other voters.  We had excellent participation rates!

I took both Tuesday and Wednesday off work, and was able to spend all day counting ballots Wednesday.  I’m also an experienced survey counter, so I managed to get the 925 surveys organized and counted by the end of the day.

My volunteers are working together to get the other sites counted, but they have other things to do too.  Altogether, we have collected thousands of exit poll surveys.  Counts are continuing even as I write this.  That I want the surveys from each site to have two independent counts doesn’t make the task any easier.

I also need to verify the results we wrote down at the polling stations, but was informed today that they won’t be available until after the canvassing is complete, approximately a week to ten days from now.  I’m glad I asked my site managers to get the totals that night from their polling stations.  I can go ahead and work on my analysis, updating it with any corrections needed when the data is available.  But I’ll hold off publishing the results until I can verify the numbers.

I will share some general stuff from my initial numbers for my site with the caveat that these results are considered preliminary until the data has been verified.

The scanned paper ballot official counts and our exit poll results are close, with nothing falling outside reasonable statistical bounds on any of the races.

The voting machine counts and our exit poll results are not as close, with a couple of results that bear looking into, but I had three results flagged earlier.  One has already turned out to be a data input error on my part.  (That’s why I want to verify the numbers before publishing).

I will present the exit poll provisional ballot results though.  I’m reasonably confident there are no large errors in my counts and small changes won’t alter these results.

In general, people who had voted provisionally were more likely to have time to take our survey.  We had 79 out of 92 provisional voters fill out our survey for a response rate of over 85%, nearly 20% higher than the 66% response rate of voters whose ballots were counted that day.

rep-share-of-provision-versus-counted-exit-poll-ballots-countrysideIn our exit poll survey, I found that provisional voters were approximately 10% less likely to vote for republican candidates.  I think it is reasonable to take this along with the additional data from the other exit poll locations, as a measure of the effectiveness of Kris Kobach’s efforts to disenfranchise non-republican voters.  I have already contacted the league of women voters to see if this data will be of help with their lawsuit regarding his practices.