Purpose – History – Qualifications – Transparency
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has stated: “Exit polls are powerful analytical tools….A discrepancy between the votes reported by voters and official results may suggest that results have been manipulated, but it does not prove this to be the case.” No claim is made by TDMS|RESEARCH that the discrepancies between the exit polls’ projections of the votes for each candidate and the computerized counts, found for example, in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic Party primary elections but not in the 2016 Republican Party primary elections is proof that the computerized counts have been manipulated in the Democratic Party primary elections. Indeed, TDMS|RESEARCH has no desire or intention to so prove.
It is enough to show that the unobservable computer counts cannot be ruled out as the cause of these discrepancies. Indeed, there’s not a single person on Earth who can rule out, with certainty and proof, computer miscount as the source of the discrepancies that systematically favored the more politically conservative candidate in every major election beginning in 2004, when they were first thoroughly examined.
Rather, the purpose of these articles is broader and more fundamental than finding and casting blame. It reaches to the very heart of a vibrant democracy. At the heart of a functioning democracy is trust in the honesty of its elections. As the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled in 2009, such trust can only be achieved when citizens know their votes were properly counted. This constitutional right, the Court ruled, can only be realized when every important aspect of an election is observable by the public. As computerized voting and counting is inherently unobservable, as a result of the Court’s decision, Germany ceased all such counting in favor of hand-counted ballots in the precincts in which they were cast in full view of the public.
With similar concerns most other major and technologically advanced democracies in the world count their paper ballots by hand in view of the public. If the United States wishes to instill trust in the honesty of its elections, now lacking with the majority of Americans, it must join with all the other major democracies and count all its ballots by hand. As realized by Germany, there is no other way.
This purpose is explicitly stated and found in a highlighted box in every article on the 2020 and 2022 elections.
Ted’s work in this field began in 2008 working with Steven F. Freeman, PhD—the co-author of the book titled Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count and published in 2006 (available at Amazon.com). Dr. Freeman and Ted, with three others huddled in the Massachusetts home of one of the participants, downloading exit polls on election night and spending the next few days analyzing the discrepancies between what the exit polls projected and the official computer counts in 50 U.S. states. He continued this work analyzing the 2012, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections.
Ted owned a small business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. With the aid of advanced mathematics courses, he shifted to full-time analytical research in 2003. Prior to this shift, Ted’s research revealed that New Hampshire state troopers disproportionately targeted out-of-state drivers for speeding. They issued them 50% to 80% of their tickets, depending on jurisdiction, when according to accident statistics they represented only 12% of the drivers on NH interstates. This research made the front page of the Boston Sunday Globe on February 4, 1996. His research subjects ranged from the HIV/AIDS pandemic (for a sample of this work, see his submission to the journal Nature) to the proportions of Americans yearly incarcerated by race and gender (not yet published). He has conducted expert analyses of exit poll/computer vote count discrepancies since 2008 with his work since 2016 published here.
The careful reader will note the utter transparency of each article: the exit polls downloaded and used for these calculations are supplied through a link at the end of every article and highlighted in a yellow box. All other data and references are immediately accessible through embedded links, all methods used are meticulously detailed, and all significant comments, questions, and criticisms answered. All work can be duplicated and checked by others. This transparency is a staple of all articles published here.