A scary item (is it true?) submitted to Dave Farber's Interesting People mailing list by one Ken Deifik:
It occurs to me that one of the questions that could be answered without too much trouble, at least for someone with lots of access to data and a knowlege of statistics, would be: is there any difference in the Bush – Kerry percentages in precincts that used eVoting, especially Diebold but all eVoting machines, as opposed to those that used paper ballots or some other method of voting. If this question has any meaning for you, I'd ask you to pose to the list, to see anyone with the proper skills and access could carry out such a study.
I hope in the next few days statisticians examine the issue of the exit polls. Since the early 70's the exit polls have always been spot on. I feel ashamed for any journalist who says the exit polls got it wrong in FLA in 2000, because it is clear they got it right.
I have to wonder how John Zogby, who predicted 312 electoral votes for Kerry at 5PM EST 11/2, could have gotten the exit polls so wrong. Or really if he did.
One reason may be who votes at what time of day?
I just found this posting in the Democratic Underground site
…on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.
In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.
So we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits
vs.
A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits.
Say it ain't so…
