MICHIGAN 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY

Please share this article:

Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count

By Theodore de Macedo Soares 

Election results from the computerized vote counts of the 2020 Michigan Democratic Party presidential primary differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. The large discrepancies greatly exceeded the margin of error for the exit poll projected differences between candidates. In this election candidate Sanders underperformed his exit poll projected proportions by 15.4%. Sanders consequently received 105,000 less votes than projected while others (mainly Biden and Bloomberg) received 111,000 more than projected by the exit poll. Of concern is Michigan’s destruction of the ballot images, that could have been used to greatly facilitate a recount, that were created by their scanners for their counts. This destruction appears to violate both federal and state laws.

This large vote shift is made more remarkable by the fact that Edison Research had almost an hour’s access to Michigan’s rapidly accumulating vote totals from almost the entirety of the state that closed an hour earlier than the small sliver in the central time zone, to alter, as is their normal practice, the exit poll to conform to the vote totals. After this hour’s adjustments the exit poll used herein was published. Undoubtedly candidate’s Sanders exit poll proportion was much larger than the proportion first published and Biden’s much less. Conceivably, given the large discrepancy remaining after alteration, the pre-adjusted original exit poll may have shown a Sanders’ win.

The same can be said for Sanders’ and Biden’s vote-count-adjusted exit polls for Texas, New Hampshire, and next Tuesday, Florida.  Unless Edison or others release the unadjusted exit polls for these and other states with dual time zones, U.S. citizens will never know the original exit poll’s projected proportions of votes for each candidate. This is unfortunate as these same citizens will also never know with any degree of certainty the actual proportion of votes cast for each candidate as they were counted by unobservable computers. 

It was to protect the trust in its elections that the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled in 2009 that all important aspects of an election must be observable and its citizens able to witness the counting of their ballots.  Now, due to this ruling all counting is done by hand in the same precincts in which they were cast and in view of the public. With the same concerns most major technologically advanced democracies in the world protect the trust in their elections with hand-counted ballots.

In Michigan, the combined discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for candidates Sanders and Biden totaled 7.5%, much larger than the 4.6% margin of error for the exit poll difference between the two. These same discrepancies between Sanders and Bloomberg totaled 10.2% about four times the margin of error at 2.5%.  All margin of errors calculated at 95% confidence interval (CI).  See table note 5.  Values greater than the margin of error are considered statistically significant. The discrepancies in favor of Biden and Bloomberg substantially exceed the margin of error at 99% (CI).

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.[i] Countries such as Germany,[ii] Norway, Netherlands, France,[iii] Canada,[iv] United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries protect the integrity and trust of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots.[v]

The common belief that the mere existence of paper ballots, allowing for a recount, lends reassurance to the voter, is in practice without foundation. If the computer system is suspected as the source of a possible miscount, obviously it would be improper to repeat this method and a hand-count made necessary. Even absent the necessity for litigation, the costs assessed by the state for such a recount would be prohibitive to the petitioner.

Many states, such as Michigan, use scanners to make images of the ballot that are then counted by computers. Approximately 80% of U.S. jurisdictions use such image-creating scanners. These images easily aggregated and disseminated would immensely facilitate recounts. According to trusted sources Michigan’s Secretary of State ordered all precincts to disable the default setting in the machines to save these images.

The reason given is that such image retention would pose a delay in the processing of votes and that the paper ballots are a sufficient record. All federal-election materials are required under federal and state laws to be preserved for at least 22 months. As it is the images and not the actual ballots that were counted, their destruction appears to violate federal and state laws.

Inquiries may be made to Michigan’s Secretary of State. For the important elections occurring next Tuesday, particularly in Florida, with dual time zones and less reliable exit polls resulting from the incorporation of Florida’s machine counts, inquiries may be made to the Secretary of State of these and other states.

Although the retention of such images is invaluable in facilitating recounts, in practice the only count that really matters is the first one. As in all other major democracies this first count, if the U.S. wishes to engender trust in its elections, must be done by hand.

[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 10, 2020 at 9:00 PM ET. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. Number of EP respondents: 1,685. Exit poll proportions rounded to nearest integer as appropriate for data derived from whole integers. 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 exit poll used here and available through the link below.

[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (99% reporting). Published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 1,585,360.

[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 Sanders, reported percentage/proportion of the total vote decreased by 6.6% 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). This value is used to show how many more or less votes the candidate received than projected by the exit poll. 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) for the differences between candidate Biden and each of the other candidate’s EP results. The exit poll MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 4.6%.  For simplicity MOE not shown for candidates with less than 4% share in the EP.  MOE calculated at 95% 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 Bloomberg with each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s and Bloomberg’s differences of 0.9% and 3.6% respectively. Disparities between Sanders and Biden are much larger than their MOE. Between Bloomberg and Sanders, they are four times their MOE. These disparities are significant as they cannot be attributed to the MOE.


Endnotes

[i] 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.” No amount of machine testing, security requirements, and licensing procedures can compensate for the constitutional requirement that “the essential steps of the electoral procedure being examined by the citizens.” And “trust in the regularity of the election [can] only [be realized] by the citizens themselves being able to reliably retrace the voting.”

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.

[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 here, here and here.

[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.

Edited March 31, 2020. Corrected margin of error set at 90% CI instead of 95% CI

***

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

Comments made on this or related pages that may be helpful to the reader (comments made on another page will open a new tab):

Why the exit polls accessible today differ from the exit poll used here.

Explanation of the method used to calculate the margin of error appropriate for an election with multiple candidates.

On errors in the conduct of an exit poll as the source of the disparities between the exit polls and the unobservable computer counts

Please share this article:

138
Leave a Reply

avatar
33 Comment threads
105 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
93 Comment authors
Theodore de Macedo SoaresThomas UrechMike AndersonMike AndersonYoooooo Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
James Michael
Guest
James Michael

Do you have a link re: the destruction of ballot images?

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

As Ted suggested, go to the direct source if you want to verify. I’m curious about Massachusetts, California, Texas, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Vermont too! Did these states retain the ballot images or not?

John R Brakey
Guest

We have the proof through our attorneys who were dealing with the MI SOS office. They said that they didn’t have to save the ballot images. That saving then could cause long lines, also the images are not readable. What they’re doing is breaking the law. Our expert witness Dr. Thomas W. Ryan, who holds a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and has over 30-years’ experience in digital image creation, processing, and interpretation, said in his affidavit: “Deleting ballot images significantly undermines the integrity of the election system that derives all its tabulation data from those images.” 2.1.10 Data Retention a. United States Code Title 42, Sections 1974 through 1974e state that election administrators shall preserve for 22 months “all records and paper that came into (their) possession relating to an application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting.” This retention requirement applies to systems that will be used at any time for voting of candidates for federal offices (e.g., Member of Congress, United States Senator, and/or Presidential Elector). b. Therefore, all voting systems shall provide for maintaining the integrity of voting and audit data during an election and for a period of at least 22 months… Read more »

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

To add to what John Brakey has stated above, the idea that saving the ballot images would cause “long lines” is beyond ludicrous! It takes less than a second to do so. To claim the ballot images are not readable is also beyond ludicrous… they are an image of the ballot and are used to tabulate the votes rather than the original paper ballot. They ARE readable. There is no legitimate reason for changing the DEFAULT SETTING of the machines which is set to SAVE ballot images — NONE! The fact that they did so in a state where there are many signs of major anomalies is very telling. We need this looked into by the top election integrity experts in the country, like John Brakey and the lawyers he works with, who are the best of the best. They can do a forensic analysis of what has happened in Michigan and in several other states where there is good reason to believe something is not right with the reported votes…. that in fact, the projected “winner” was not actually the winner… that in fact, even where the “winner” wouldn’t change if the vote tallies were correct, the candidate in… Read more »

Deb Iris
Guest
Deb Iris

Cindy, I’m just about to have a letter published in a regional cooperative paper here in NW Wisconsin appealing to Bernie to demand an independent recount and/or run as a third party. He said he would support the winner in a fair election, and this was not a fair election, and most of us know it, including people all over the world. This is going to severely damage democracy if he lets this go. I haven’t been able to find a petition for Bernie to do this, so I’m thinking about starting a petition on change.org. It’s not my forte to get eyes on something like that, so I’m looking for any advice I can get.

Pam
Guest
Pam

I think the problem, Deb, is that once the images are destroyed, they can’t do a recount. That’s why we need paper ballots.

TNTdynomite
Guest
TNTdynomite

Hey Pam – actually Michigan does vote by paper ballot, so if anyone wanted to do a recount they would just recount all the paper ballots each county/precinct saves.

Paper ballot source: https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state

Dale Lawrence
Guest
Dale Lawrence

Have you made any progress? This SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT BE DROPPED!

Ronny Donnyonyea
Guest
Ronny Donnyonyea

Mr. Brakey thank you. You’re one of the best advocates in the country on this issue. It’s quite a relief to hear you weigh in on this, there’s no one I’d rather have helping with this.

Charlie Zxi
Guest
Charlie Zxi

This is terrible news.

https://www.edisonresearch.com/category/election-polling/

Due to the coronavirus outbreak, the National Election Pool will not be conducting in-person Exit Polls for the primaries on Tuesday March 17th. We will still look to report counted vote totals as they are made available by elections officials and explore other options for reporting the views of voters in the states holding primaries. The National Election Pool remains committed to delivering the most comprehensive coverage of elections in the U.S

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

This has NOTHING to do with the corona virus!!!!!!!!!!! We are repeating what happened in 2016. They did exactly the same thing, cancelling the exit pols, in 2016 toward the end of the primary when California was about to vote (and several other states on that same day) when Attorney Cliff Arnebeck filed a lawsuit. As part of this lawsuit, he compelled the 6 media giants who paid for those polls (AP, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, and CNN) to not destroy and provide him the UNadjusted poll data. He also pointed out the fraud that had been going on and let them know he knew they had to know. Their response was to cancel almost immediately and last minute those critical exit polls (especially California where many of us believe they rigged it royally for Hillary Clinton)! There was also a BIG BIG push at that time to anoint Clinton BEFORE the convention. I even heard they took FBI protection away from Bernie and his family or at least threatened to. I’m not certain of this last fact but the lawsuit and the fact they cancelled the exit polls in direct response to it, I’m sure of… I even talked… Read more »

Joe G.
Guest
Joe G.

I just wanna say I always enjoy reading your comments! I didn’t know about that lawsuit! I wish with all my heart that Bernie will challenge the results, but it looks like he simply won’t. Why is it so hard to get a simple recount?! Well, I know they made it harder in Michigan by destroying the digital ballots, but the other states shouldn’t be too difficult! Bernie Sanders was the first politician I ever voted for at 21 years old. I waited FOUR YEARS for another chance only to see my passion trampled on, see him humiliated, see everything we dreamed just cheated away. I feel powerless. We need to find a specific way to organize every one of us who believes there was rigging so we can collectively call out this abominable fraud!

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Hey Joe, congratulations on voting in your first presidential season. I still remember my first time to vote for president too. 🙂 I want to encourage you to not give up on Bernie calling this out just yet. I think if enough people voice their concerns, he just might do it…. perhaps not with the fanfare some of us would like… but maybe in his own “Bernie way.” He already has lawyers working for his campaign but he doesn’t have the right lawyers for election integrity nor does he have the experts I have in mind… people who could really get in there and figure things out. I’ve thought that maybe we should revert to old fashioned methods and start a letter writing campaign. We send cards and letters with our own personal message to Bernie, Faiz, Nina, and all the rest…. handwritten if possible… and each ask/encourage in our own way for him to do this. Imagine if he could get thousands of handwritten letters in the next few days each asking him to please hold a press conference and state publicly that there are anomalies in the election and that he’s hiring a team of experts in election… Read more »

Blue Fist
Guest
Blue Fist

One of the best things one can learn is not to attribute to malice anything as easily explained by raw human incompetence.

Don’t embarrass yourself by bragging on waiting to do something useful only once every 4 damn years. FYI, in addition to presidential elections, we have plenty of state and local ones in between. Millions in their 60s and older have been passionately engaged for over 40 years. Do the Math and see that’s longer than you’ve drawn breath. Get a little perspective.

If Bernie’s Bros were to man up and SHOW UP AT THE POLLS, they’d all have some bragging rights. They don’t. To date, all they’ve been good for is an online distraction.

Susan Ruggles
Guest
Susan Ruggles

I agree, “millions in their 60s and older have been passionately engaged for over 40 years”. We started by protesting the Vietnam War, and have consistently opposed every war and U.S. intervention since. We have struggled for racial justice, for women’s and gender equality, for gay rights, for immigrant rights, for labor rights, and for climate action. We are women and men, gay and straight and trans, black, white, Asian, Latinx, and Native American. And we support Bernie because he’s been there on the front lines with us. Don’t do us a disservice by calling us Bernie bros. Maybe it’s you who needs some perspective.

Sheryl F
Guest
Sheryl F

Who the heck are you telling that guy what he should or should not be embarrassed about and what he should do. Your giveaway is your use of Bernie bro.(Trolling) You should be embarrassed to be repeating stupid labels like that.

Caroline
Guest
Caroline

I am right here with you… I don’t understand why this is not being talked about. What can we do to further this discussion?!

Pam
Guest
Pam

They can’t do a recount with these machines because they destroy the original image when they change it. There is no way to check it. So there is no proof. The only indicator is the exit polls.

Sheryl F
Guest
Sheryl F

Do over. Paper ballots mailed. Everyone. This would also be useful to those who waited hours and had to leave the line and those who decided not to vote, fearing loss of health, crushing medical bills, and death.

Holding an election during the plague was reckless and certainly not valid.

Sheryl F
Guest
Sheryl F

I was just today thinking about those cancelled exit polls. Thanks for filling in the detail.

Sheryl F
Guest
Sheryl F

I remembered that they were cancelled. Had no idea of what was behind it.

Concerned User
Guest
Concerned User

Please read the following critique of Teddy’s methodology. He’s misleading us and it’s quite unfortunate

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/fj5go3/theres_no_exit_poll_discrepancy_a_deep_dive_into/

Theodore de Macedo Soares
Guest
Theodore de Macedo Soares

Dear Concerned User. The Reddit post claims my exit poll numbers are incorrect because they don’t match the currently published exit polls. The PDF copy of the exit polls I used are placed below every article in a yellow-highlighted box. See for yourself! The currently available exit polls have been matched to the computer count as is normal procedure by Edison Research. This is explained in Table Note 1 and throughout these articles addressing the same issue. READERS please go to that Reddit site and correct the misinformation!

Concerned Berner
Guest
Concerned Berner

The currently available exit polls have NOT been “matched” to the computer count. That’s not how it works. The adjustments are because the polls do not exactly capture the demographic spread, but the demographic spread is known from preexisting data, so the polls are adjusted to conform to the actual spread of the voter base and the vote totals. This serves the purpose of exit polling and also more accurately reflects the underlying distribution that was actually polled.

You literally have no idea how exit polling works. You’re just using earlier less accurate data to support a narrative and it has been exposed. Give it up already

Theodore de Macedo Soares
Guest
Theodore de Macedo Soares

First off you do not acknowledge that you and the Reddit poster made false accusations. Since the first attempt to discredit this work failed, now you try something else. The executive Vice-President of the polling firm has stated: “After polls close, data is weighted to the official final numbers.” https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/03/politics/what-are-exit-polls/index.html. In other words, they adjust the exit poll data to conform to the official results.

Sheryl F
Guest
Sheryl F

Why do they do that?

Mike Anderson
Guest
Mike Anderson

Because the Edison Research/CNN exit survey is NOT an integrity poll. It is for demographics. The sample size is far too small, and it is not a normal distribution. Actual election results are used for calibration. THis is academic and well understood.

munkle
Guest
munkle

Concerned Berner – If that were the case those adjustments would benefit or harm all the candidates randomly. Instead it is always Biden at the expense of Bernie. How gullible are you?

Sheryl F
Guest
Sheryl F

Actually I do think that other earlier candidates were affected as well, but not as much as it seems Senator Sanders was. In 2016 the information that I have is that there were discrepancies on the Dem side but not Republicans. That theirs were very close to the count and the exit polls. Lies are the scourge of our lifetime. They allow for much of what is wrong in this world.

Math and Statistics
Guest
Math and Statistics

Then refute his mathematical proof with mathematical proof of your own.

Susan Ruggles
Guest
Susan Ruggles

Have you looked at absentee ballots? It seems strange to me that Bernie won the in-person vote in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Washtenaw County as a whole, yet lost by a two-to-one margin in the absentee vote. https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/march2020/index.jsp

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

We saw this same situation in SC I believe. I’m told by election integrity experts with massive experience that the absentee votes are much easier to rig.

Kylem
Guest
Kylem

um big problem SC rarely allows those and no early voting at all.

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Ted, your work is so important. I hope everyone reading this Michigan report shares it widely. We really need to get the word out. The more people who know about this, the more chance we have to fix it now and in the future. Also… the more chance we get the candidates themselves to address it!

Concerned User
Guest
Concerned User

No Ted is literally making shit up. He has been thoroughly debunked and won’t respond to it. Perhaps you can?

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/fj5go3/theres_no_exit_poll_discrepancy_a_deep_dive_into/

Theodore de Macedo Soares
Guest
Theodore de Macedo Soares

Dear Concerned User. The Reddit post claims my exit poll numbers are incorrect because they don’t match the currently published exit polls. The PDF copy of the exit polls I used are placed below every article in a yellow-highlighted box. See for yourself! The currently available exit polls have been matched to the computer count as is normal procedure by Edison Research. This is explained in Table Note 1 and throughout these articles addressing the same issue. READERS please go to that Reddit site and correct the misinformation!

Concerned Berner
Guest
Concerned Berner

The PDF copy of your exit polls ARE INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE DATA. The final data is not “matched” to the vote count. That’s misleading and you know it. The adjustments are because the polls do not exactly capture the demographic spread, but the demographic spread is known from preexisting data, so the polls are adjusted to conform to the actual spread of the voter base and the vote totals. This serves the purpose of exit polling and also more accurately reflects the underlying distribution that was actually polled.

Brandon
Guest
Brandon

The final data IS matched to the vote count actually. The problem is, he didn’t save or archive his sources and just provides the numbers on this site. https://youtu.be/e5Oz-0IhzbA?t=2001 Nevertheless, many experts on exit polls don’t think they are accurate enough to predict elections. The MOE is too high, BUT severe discrepancies could indicate fraud. It’s a tricky situation

Guest
Guest
Guest

Is anyone with legal expertise following this? I’d like an expert to weigh in on whether Bernie’s campaign has any recourse to demand paper recounts. Are there any laws or DNC-rules that would enable this?

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

There are definitely election integrity lawyers and other experts following this and wanting to help. However, they would have a lot more ability to do something about this if Bernie himself, his campaign, actually gets on board. Candidates have more legal standing, can get records more easily, and of course have a megaphone like no other to move things along. There are so many red flags in Michigan I don’t see how Bernie’s Team cannot speak out on this and put together the best election integrity team in the business to help investigate and file legal action where it makes sense to do so. Same in Massachusetts, Texas, and California at minimum from my perspective, although there’s major red flags in other states as well. If you’re a Bernie supporter, or just someone who wants elections to be fair and transparent, please consider contacting Bernie in every way you can… repeatedly… and contact his surrogates… repeatedly… and contact his inner circle…. repeatedly… we must impress upon Bernie that “Not Me Us” wants him to do this, that there’s real reason to do this, and that we have his back if he does. Bernie preaches “bottom up” not “top down.” I… Read more »

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Hi Jude, why don’t you reach out to her yourself and give her the URL of this website. Ask her to contact Ted. Do you have a website or social media page?

Kylem
Guest
Kylem

They can’t it was all brought up last election. The DNC was ruled private so they can count the votes anyway they want even if its fake.

Joe G.
Guest
Joe G.

I knew this was going to happen before they started voting. I’ve been waiting to see this post. Michigan was very important so they had to make sure Biden stole it. This makes me sick to my stomach.

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Hi Joe, have you contacted Bernie to express your feelings on this mater? I suggest you do so… we need to convince him to speak out and investigate… and accept the help of election integrity lawyers and experts who know exactly what to look for… basically forensic audit 🙂 and they will need Bernie because the candidate has more rights to these records than do individuals/voters. Also, you may want to try contacting Bernie’s surrogates and inner circle/staff like his 4 co-chairs, his manager, etc…. plus maybe anyone who has endorsed him. If anyone reading this knows Michael Moore…. please get him this info!

Marcos Rocha
Guest
Marcos Rocha

What can be done to recount? This is a pivotal state for Bernie. Please help us make this right.

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

There’s still the paper ballots but as Ted was referring to in his report, it’s extremely expensive and very difficult to gain access to those… usually it takes the candidate filing a formal recount request I believe and copies have to be made and the candidate ends up paying for a lot of staff time. Ballot images are MUCH cheaper and faster to reproduce and recount. Plus, you have major chain of custody issues with the original paper ballots that you would not have with the ballot images.

Marcos Rocha
Guest
Marcos Rocha

What can be done? This state is/was pivotal!

Mt Davis
Guest
Mt Davis

Such a large Discrepancy really sounds suspicious. We all get screwed.

Ned P
Guest
Ned P

Can someone please explain what “vote-count-adjusted exit polls” means? Why would you adjust the exit polls to equal the vote count? doesn’t that defeat the entire purpose of an exit poll? Can someone explain what the purpose of this practice is?

Thank you

Concerned User
Guest
Concerned User

Teddy, your methodology has been thoroughly critiqued in this write up. Please respond to us and them directly if you don’t mind. I trusted you and I’m very disappointed

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/fj5go3/theres_no_exit_poll_discrepancy_a_deep_dive_into/

This write-up shows that all exit polling data was in the margin of error. Here is an exert that shows how you got such inflated numbers:

“To illustrate how much this affects the numbers TDMS reports, imagine a candidate who polls at 1% in the exit poll and gets 1.5% in the actual results. This is only a 0.5% polling miss and is likely well within the margin of error for the poll, but TDMS would report that as +0.5/1 = 50%, claiming the poll was a massive 50% off. This is how all of the numbers in the image are calculated, making all of them multiple times higher than the actual values.”

Danny
Guest
Danny

One deep dive deserves another, don’t you think? This subreddit labels itself as “Woke Capitalism,” is overtly pro-Biden, anti-Sanders, puts forward outright falsehoods about the DSA (ie: they don’t organize in minority communities and don’t vote), and is full of memes about big tents, as though that Overton window shift hasn’t been the exact recipe that has baked us a big, beautiful Trump cake. if such a webspace did not have a takedown piece about of one of the most widely visited and cited election integrity blogs on the web, there would be a need to create one.

Concerned User
Guest
Concerned User

Obviously we should have questions for a subreddit called “/r/NeoLibearal” but you’re not taking on the content of the critique. You’re simply rejecting it because of the cover of the book. That is not a deep dive AT ALL. That’s intellectually lazy and you know it. Please, do a deep dive and tell me exactly what is wrong with this debunk. The critiquer didn’t simply say “oh TDMS is a Bernie supporter, we can’t trust him. No, the critiquer actually went through the flaw in methodology one by one. This is how peer review works. Time for respond. So far, Ted hasn’t been able to do it. Will you?

Theodore de Macedo Soares
Guest
Theodore de Macedo Soares
Theodore de Macedo Soares
Guest
Theodore de Macedo Soares

You are spamming this site with the same false accusation that is addressed in https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/14/michigan-2020-democratic-party-primary/#comment-2625 Once more and you will be banned from this website!

Showbiz for ugly people
Guest
Showbiz for ugly people

Neoliberalism is a mental illness. We can therefore completely dismiss anything its adherents say as a dangerous communicable disease and quarantine these people until they have proven themselves absolutely free of their predatory tendencies.

Fred Lundgren
Guest

Concerned user. I don’t know how you can argue that a 50% increase in a candidate’s vote count can only equal a 1/2% error. It’s easy to prove the accuracy of Ted’s methodology. Simply run the hypothetical numbers up to 10% and 15%. At that level, it becomes clear that your argument fails the test of logic.
You are making the argument that the “error” should be measured against the full universe of voters. That’s simply wrong by any standard.
The discrepancy must be viewed for each candidate individually. Any other framework for arriving at a supportable conclusion hides the discrepancy.

Danny
Guest
Danny

Hello TDMS, As you may have noticed, the “vettting” gears are in motion, and doubts are being cast on who you are and your credentials. In the vacuum left by your admittedly in-progress ‘About’ section, Twitter comments are appearing characterizing you as “a guy in vermont with a blog and some speeding tickets,” which though perhaps true, comes across as an attempt to discredit. Point being, it will probably be important for the world to know more about you, or for you to be vouched for by election integrity figures and/or institutions we can trust*. Have you reached out to any notable people or organizations, or have they reached out to you, to affirm the factual accuracy of what’s presented here and generally bolster TDMS Research’s bonafides? Side note: is there a plan in place for data redundancy to ensure that all the relevant evidence is backed up in multiple locations? Are you in possession of evidence that might disappear if you or your site does? Thanks, -Danny * = for the record, I personally do not put the OAS in that category. I wonder if M.I.T.’s Election Data and Science Lab is a good alternative given the work they… Read more »

Don Paul
Guest

Thank you again, Ted, for the detailed comparisons and astute analysis. That the scans are gone tell the tale for Michigan. The DNC is stealing the Primaries for a sure loser so that Trump will be re-selected, I think. We have to move outside national electoral politics with actions that empower communities–but your work, the exposure and discussion that you’ve brought to us, is invaluable. Again, thanks to all who are earnest in this series of threads!

trackback

[…] The  DNC rigged the voting machines 2020 primary- just like the 2016 primary and presidential elections in which Sanders and Trump were cheated. https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/14/michigan-2020-democratic-party-primary/ […]

Zar
Guest
Zar

For casual readers wondering about the veracity of Theodore’s claim about exit polls being updated after the closing bell, I reproduced his results. I followed his process while the Michigan exit polls and ballots were coming in, and I can vouch that CNN updated their exit poll figures to add a very small number of respondents after the initial results were published, and that roughly none of these late respondents were apparently Sanders fans. Theodore’s initial and final figures match mine. But as both Theodore and the “Concerned ______” commenters have mentioned, it’s no secret that exit polls are adjusted after their responses are tallied. The real question seems to be: are these updates legit? Why does accounting for demographic spread appear to always result in votes being “taken” from Sanders, or “given” to the most popular alternative candidate(s)? Theodore points out what the exit pollsters themselves appear to admit: the exit polls are weighted to fit the results. The Reddit missive linked in the comments mentions, but resolutely misses this point, crowing over the accuracy of the “real” results. I’d like to ask the Concerned Redditors: given that the exit polls received their marching orders from the election results,… Read more »

Susan Ruggles
Guest
Susan Ruggles

The fact that Edison Research does both the exit polling and vote tabulation seems to constitute a conflict of interest… https://www.edisonresearch.com/election-polling/?fbclid=IwAR3S5fwQSO81keQgUbKtKyh3bkYqW2YJpyBPVcEMEKmpV6qBTF4Z-X5sFTQ#one

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Edison does NOT tabulate the votes.

Susan Ruggles
Guest
Susan Ruggles

This is a quote from Edison’s website: “In an effort to improve quality, streamline data collection, and expand election coverage in 2018, ABC News, CBS News, CNN and NBC News ended their arrangement with the Associated Press for vote tabulation and now partner with Edison Research for these data.”

JE2727
Guest
JE2727

That’s the tabulation for exit polls.

Kaylakaze
Guest
Kaylakaze

This is the same primary where screenshots showed Bernie suddenly dropping by 300,000 votes within the space of 2 minutes and 4 more precincts reporting in.

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Just saw this petition (and signed it) calling for the UN to monitor our elections, giving Ted’s exit poll research as a reason: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/u-n-is-needed-to-oversee-democratic-primaries-due-to-election-fraud

Charlie Zxi
Guest
Charlie Zxi

❤️ I signed last week. Everyone on here needs to sign it. Ask friends to sign it!

JE2727
Guest
JE2727

There were 800k+ absentee voters that were not part of the Election Day exit polling. How does your analysis account for that? It was clear from the earlier released votes that Election Day voters were younger and more favorable to Bernie, while absentee votes went much more to Biden (expected since absentee votes skew old).

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

If you want to send a card or letter to Bernie Sanders, Faiz Shakir , or Nina Turner and the other co-chairs, asking them to please call out the anomalies we’re seeing in this election and to hire election integrity experts to help, here’s a good address for where to send them:

Bernie Sanders
Bernie 2020 Vermont Headquarters
131 Church Street, 2nd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401

I’m hoping he gets a mountain of them and they all collectively help “move the mountain” when it comes to addressing this issue publicly and getting the professional help he needs to take back this election that I think is being stolen state by state.

Deacon Paul and the Fallen Angels
Guest
Deacon Paul and the Fallen Angels

The truth is always simple.

Who the Fuque is this grandiose, delusional, long-winded No Name crank?

Kylem
Guest
Kylem

the truth is always simple… you must not understand how governments work yet.

Jimbo Splice
Guest
Jimbo Splice

Theodore, have you thought about accompanying these posts with some graphs of distributions before? Specifically normal/t-distributions of projected exit poll proportions, and where the final results lay on them. Statistics dealing with proportions can be pretty hard for people to wrap their heads around, but a visual can really help clarify how improbable some of these official results are compared to predictions.

Byron
Guest
Jude
Guest
Jude

Exactly. An investigation is underway for the sake of election integrity. And regardless of who wins, election fraud is serious and needs to be purged from our election process. Thanks for sharing! Cindy, Theo, Nikki, did you folks read this???

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Lee Camp certainly has a way of driving the point home! This one is so well done, maybe we put part of it in a commercial!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6iTd18lPI

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Lee Camp certainly has a way of driving the point home! This one is so well done, maybe we put part of it in a commercial!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6iTd18lPI

Dean Cameron
Guest
Dean Cameron

Hey All you wonderful people backing Bernie – a person of genuine integrity in his efforts to save America’s failed democracy. My country Australia has the same problem as yours. Representative democracy has become a slush fund for greedy corporate interests. I watch with dismay people being conned and their votes being stolen! Time to learn from Blockchain. It is now possible for every person on earth to have their own blockchain ID and transact or vote on a public verifiable ledger. Voter fraud can become a thing of the past as people don’t need to have a corruptible representative to help formulate policy or vote on new laws. We can vote on the issues and laws we care about directly. Elections are only empowering for special interest groups. Why should we have to choose a flawed candidate dished up to us, someone we hope will represent our best interests when we can have our say directly and within seconds securely from any digital device. Our elections are a sham circus that wastes billions of dollars trying to con us into believing we need someone to “represent” us! We don’t. I can engage with debates on issues I care about… Read more »

John delany
Guest
John delany

Where can i see your full methodology

trackback

[…] Michigan 2020 Dem Primary: Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count […]

Jimbo Slice
Guest
Jimbo Slice

Ted. Can you respond to this fact-check.org article that ranked your claims to be false? This isn’t just some reddit article. This is a reputable website that I think deserves a response from you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/no-huge-red-flag-that-fraud-occurred-in-mass-primary/

Tim
Guest
Tim

Can you share the exit poll data from the other states that had exit polls? Will be interesting to see if they were as biased against Bernie as these.

BigFun
Guest
BigFun

Hey Theodore. I saw your response in the comments about the fact check article and your discrepancy numbers – basically saying percent change is a common way to measure things. That’s true in situations where there is no cap – i.e. a salary increase from 50K to 60K is a 20% increase. However, that is definitely not how percent change is examined in a max 100% system. These four academics were all quoted saying essentially the same thing why are you correct and all four of these academics are wrong?

“Calculating gain/loss as the author does has the potential of making relatively small discrepancies seem much larger, I don’t know of anybody who analyzes poll numbers this way.” – William Mayer, political science professor, Northeastern University

“Not informative in any way, unless you want to show a bigger number. This is needlessly inflammatory.” – James McCann, political science professor, Purdue University.

“Misleading at best and corrosive at worst.” – Daron Shaw, professor, University of Texas

“Exit polls are not designed to be a check on the vote outcome. Period.” – Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth University Polling

Theodore de Macedo Soares
Guest
Theodore de Macedo Soares

A full response to FactCheck.org’s reprehensible journalism is still to come. Briefly FactCheck.org, in classic “strawman” fashion, attacks someone else’s tweet and then in classic “red herring” fashion unloads both barrels on a minor statistic not emphasized in the articles to avoid the main theme that is emphasized: As in the 2016 Democratic Party primaries, almost all states in 2020 primaries have significant discrepancies between the exit poll projected vote share and the vote share determined by unobservable computer counts. These discrepancies all go in one direction—against Sanders. The 2016 Republican Party primaries’ computer vote tabulations in all states but two, matched the exit polls projections within the margin of error associated with the exit polls. FactCheck’s reprehensible journalism did not include the explanation that the statistic is used for the practical purpose of showing how many more votes, according to the exit polls, the candidate would have gained or lost. In MA, for example the article states Biden’s “vote totals represented a 16.2% increase of his projected exit poll share…he gained approximately 65,200 more votes than projected by the exit poll.” The converse, of course, is true for Sanders. What is presented is neither “misleading” or “inflammatory” just a… Read more »

Joe G.
Guest
Joe G.

I wish you could do interviews with news outlets to explain your work. It would be nice if at least one mainstream media publication picked this up, but I suppose that will never happen.

DrPopper
Guest
DrPopper

I’m worried TDMS won’t do interviews because his math doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. :/

Brandon
Guest
Brandon

Hi there. I’m really interested in seeing a screenshot of the CNN polls the night of the election, or an archive link or something to show that the CNN pages are different now. Thanks for putting this information out so clearly.

Brandon
Guest
Brandon

Seriously. I’d like to see a reference for your numbers besides just the table and the link to the current stats on the page. Please

Thomas Urech
Guest
Thomas Urech

I personally recalculated the totals. Nobody had the straight results so, as you did, I used the CNN exit poll by gender to get the “total” results. At https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls/michigan/democratic under “gender” 46% of respondents were male and 54% of respondents were female. 47% of male respondents said Biden and 41% said Bernie. 58% of female respondents said Biden and 34% said Bernie. To find the total, I multiplied the demographics by their proportion supporting Biden or Bernie then added the genders together. (total, candidate) = (%male respondents) * (%male support) + (%female respondents) * (%female support) Biden = (0.46 * 0.47) + (0.54 * 0.58) = 0.2162 + 0.3132 = 0.5264 = 52.64% Bernie = (0.46 * 0.41) + (0.54 * 0.34) = 0.1886 + 0.1836 = 0.3722 = 37.22% Which is actually really close to the official results: 52.9% for Biden and 36.4% for Bernie I have no idea how you got 43% support for Bernie from those poll numbers. Neither male nor female support was even at 43%. What were your exact equations to get those results? I’m upset that all exit poll data I found is clouded by double statistics (support by gender, support by race, never… Read more »