Exit Polls Versus Reported Vote Counts
By Theodore de Macedo Soares
Table and article to be updated as the vote count progresses. Updated November 5, 2020 at 1:50 PM EST. Table updated November 7, 2020 at 12:15 PM EST. Presidency called for Biden around 11:30 AM EST on November 7, 2020.
According to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research, Biden easily won the presidency. As in past elections, the pattern of overwhelming discrepancies between the exit poll results and the unverified computer vote counts, always favoring the more politically conservative candidate, continues in this election. Incorporating the exit poll results in the New York Times interactive Electoral College map, Biden wins the presidency with a count of 328 electoral votes versus 210 for Trump.
Exit polls were conducted in 24 states. In 22 states the discrepancies between the exit polls and the vote count favored Trump. As the table below shows, in 12 of these states the discrepancies favoring Trump exceed the margin of error of the state’s exit poll.
As in the 2016 Democratic Party primaries and general election (and prior elections), the overwhelming discrepancies in the 2020 Democratic Party primaries and general election, always favoring the more politically conservative candidate, are a near statistical impossibility. The source of the problem is systemic. Either the exit polls and the pre-election polls have been improperly conducted or the vote counts are corrupt.
The exit polls conducted by Edison in this coronavirus pandemic year used the same methodology as in previous years. In 2016 absentee and early voting represented about 40% of the votes, this year it will exceed 60%. Early voters were submitted the exit poll questionnaire at their voting locations same as on election day. Telephone interviews were conducted of absentee voters as in previous years. See CNN article.
The possibility that our vote counts are corrupt cannot be dismissed off-hand or ignored. Computer vote counts are never verified by full hand counts and the vote counting software is proprietary—hidden from view and inaccessible to the public.
Election results in the United States are determined by vote counting systems supplied by three private corporations: Elections Systems & Software, LLC, Dominion Voting, and Hart Intercivics. According to the Pew Research Center, 94% of all voters in 2016 voted on electronic voting machines or optically scanned ballots nationwide. Members of Congress observe the fact that their proprietary software, inaccessible to elections officials and the public undermine trust in our elections.
The possible means to corrupt the vote is not hard. As every vote counting machine has the vendor’s software custom updated for each state prior to every election, the votes can be corrupted by hacking/altering this software at the source and either the vendor or state functionaries will install this software in all the state’s machines.
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, Norway, Netherlands, France, Canada, 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.
 Cohn, Jennifer. 2018. “Voting Machines: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” New York Review of Books. Available at https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/05/voting-machines-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
 DeSilver, Drew. 2016. “On Election Day, Most Voters Use Electronic Or Optical-Scan Ballots.” Pew Research Center. Available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-day-most-voters-use-electronic-or-optical-scan-ballots/
 Collier, Victoria & Ptashnik, Ben. 2016. “Members of Congress Call for End to Mass Voter Suppression and Insecure Elections.” Thruthout.org. Available at https://truthout.org/articles/members-of-congress-call-for-end-to-mass-voter-suppression-and-insecure-elections/
Exit polls downloaded from CNN’s website at poll’s closing: ALABAMA – ARIZONA – CALIFORNIA – COLORADO – FLORIDA – GEORGIA – IOWA – KENTUCKY – MAINE – MICHIGAN – MINNESOTA – MONTANA – NEVADA – NEW HAMPSHIRE – NEW YORK – NORTH CAROLINA – OHIO – OREGON – PENNSYLVANIA – SOUTH CAROLINA – TEXAS – VIRGINIA – WASHINGTON – WISCONSIN – NATIONAL
Please credit this article if you use these exit polls or figures derived from them in your publications.
 Exit polls (EP) conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN shortly after the closing of polls for the state and downloaded by TdMS. Edison Research conducted one national EP and EPs in 24 states. Exit poll results are derived from the gender category–the proportion of men and women voting for each candidate. As these first published exit polls are altered/adjusted to conform with the unverified computer vote counts, the discrepancies shown above are adjusted to near zero in the final EPs.
The states marked by an asterisk are states where the vast majority of the state’s polls close an hourly earlier than the rest. Edison Research uses their access to these vote counts to better match their exit polls to the unverified computer vote counts. The discrepancies, therefore, between the exit polls and the vote counts are probably much greater than shown above.
 New York Times reported vote counts. https://nyti.ms/3mN2ujW
 The margin columns subtract Trump totals from Biden’s. A Biden win is shown by a positive sign and a Trump win by a negative sign.
 Note that the Margin of Error (MOE) is for the differences between the two candidates (at 95% CI). This MOE is about double the usual MOE for each candidate. MoE calculated with multinomial formula discussed in sections 2 and 4 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