On what reasonable basis would we trust any data from Mitofsky & MSM?

[understandinglife]

Had any of these organizations cared even slightly for the stability and validity of our American franchise of Democracy they would have pro-actively released the 'raw' exit poll data, immediately.

It was obvious to many of us, in the early morning of 3 Nov 2004, that something inexplicable had happened. And, in a matter of a few days after 3 Nov 2004, it was clear we had a big credibility gap between what the exit polls predicted and what happened.

Everyone here knows the "Ukrainian situation" and all the irony associated with it so I have no reason to expound on it with one exception -- the folk with the exit poll data were highly motivated to make it fully available, asap.

Once Mitofsky refused to attend Congressman Conyers forum on 8 Dec 2004 and refused to release the 'raw' data after being formally asked by a member of the US Congress he created more than a 'discovery' problem. His actions and those of the networks render whatever numbers they release compromised.

No matter what the numbers, how can we trust the data to be what was actually collected at the polls -- the 'raw' data. How many 'insiders' will need to questioned under oath? Will we need a 'whistle-blower' to come forward and verify, or not, the data?

Point being, Mitofsky and the networks have no credibility because of their willful, self-serving intransigence. If ever they were going to meet their responsibility to the security and viability of our American franchise of democracy, they would have made the 'raw' data available and would have required those who collected the data to be available for interview.

They have failed as citizens of our democracy; they have failed as patriots. They are merely scabs, garnering profit at the total disregard for the stability and validity of our elected government.

We must bring their shameful behavior to full scrutiny and, most importantly, we must insist that they be placed under oath and be certain that they understand the traitorous, criminal consequences if the 'raw' data they have has been in any way manipulated. The burden is on them and they have only until 6 Jan 2005 to come clean and serve our democracy, as opposed to their profit margins and whatever political agenda they may be accomplishing by their current behavior.

Peace.

[Generator]

1. And why not release it if there's no there there

It's obviously a smoking gun and they are working on how to make it stop smoking.

[understandinglife]

3. Yes, and that's why I think it important to expose them now....

...in a way that denies them any credibility unless they release the data before 6 Jan 2005 and they do it under oath and the provide each of the pollsters to Congressman Conyers for sworn deposition.

If their current compromised status is not aggressively addressed, particularly with members of Congress, now, then they could well release numbers that have no resemblance to the data collected at the polls.

It's a preemptive strike that simply classifies them as what they are. They have failed to serve and preserve our franchise of democracy.

Peace.

[Goldeneye]

2. They won't be able to change everything.

We saw the stuff on CNN...that's gonna have to stay in. If they're making adjustments, they will have to work around that info. Maybe getting around the stuff we saw won't be a challenge for professional statisticians. I just don't know what to think anymore.

[Bill Bored]

4. Mitofsky is a dillweed...

...but these exit polls, unless appropriately weighted, have favored the Dems in several previous elections including Dukakis vs. Bush in 1988. Someone posted a thread with links to an article about this a while back, but there are so many of 'em I don't know where it is at the moment.

If the early data was unweighted it does not prove fraud. All these polls have to be adjusted and ultimately conform to the election results themselves. I'm sorry to say that they are really just another form of ratings, like those used to sell soap ads on TV.

That said, sure the dillweed should come forward and release his raw data. And Diebold should release their source code too! Let's face it, they're all in business for one reason -- to make money -- not to ensure the accuracy of the vote per se.

What WE need to do is to place the onus on the states to prove that all our votes counted as cast. This means litigation, citing the proprietary nature of the machine code, lack of security to protect the data, the need for the voter-verifiable paper trail, etc.

Another poster in another thread has also suggested that the way to prove fraud is to recount ALL the votes in Ohio, or any damn county or precincts we choose as citizens. While I can't say this is a bad idea, if Ohio does indeed have a voter-verified paper trail on their DREs (and I'm still not sure that they do), it is expensive because you have to pay the local election workers to actually count the ballots while you observe. The main difference between this and the Glibs' effort, is that this one can happen even after Shrub has been reinstalled, while theirs has to go by Ohio recount law and to make any difference, has to be completed ASAP, without major errors, hacking, etc. and unfortunately, without hand counting as much as 97% of the votes.

Bottom line: proving fraud is "hard work" but as another well-known Republican once said, "Trust but verify."

[Igel]

5. The raw data, by itself, is fairly pointless.

So you know that X1 people (with appropriate breakdown into all sorts of categories) voted for Bush, Y1 people for Kerry in precinct 1; X2 voted for Bush, Y2 for Kerry, in precinct 2. And Z1 people in precinct 1 refused to answer, and had whatever profile. Etc.

Yippee.

The key to making it useful is the weightings. And my hunch is that Mitofsky won't release those.

[htuttle]

6. Here's how I view the corporate media

I don't watch corporate news to find out what's going on.

I watch corporate news to find out what the corporate/government complex WANTS me to think is going on. And that tells me something about their plans and direction.

It's bascially the same way that Soviet citizens used to read Pravda. They knew it was lies. But it told them what the government was lying about, and from that, they could extrapolate some truth.

[understandinglife]

7. Thank you for your responses. They provided even more justification...

.....for why I've written Congressman Conyers and others and urged them to re-empt any 'disclosure' of information from Mitofsky and the MSM by demanding not only the 'raw' data but access to those who collected it (for sworn testimony) and access to whatever records exist for various 'interpretations' of the 'raw' data they may have generated, during the day on 2 Nov 2004.

I think their intransigence is the real message and is more than adequate justification to suspect systematic 'adjustment' of 'tabulations' sometime between 8pm EST and 1am EST, 2-3 Nov 2004.

Putting folk under oath and asking lots of questions, of lots of folk, along with taking whatever amount of time is required to check those ballots that are not vapor-votes, are just some of what should happen after the halt occurs on 6 Jan 2005.

Peace.

[KerryOn]

8. Have you noticed CBS exit polls?

The final exit polls at CBS's web site give 50% to Bush and 50% to Kerry for every single state. (The M/F percentage varies for each state, but every single one averages to 50%) IT looks like them HAD to do this on purpose, but what would the reason be?

I have sent them several e-mail in the last two weeks asking for an explanation, and they will not answer.

If everyone sends them one e-mail per day asking them the same thing,
maybe we could get a response.

[understandinglife]

9. I think we are the point, particularly given the analysis done by TIA,..

....and others, that the only appropriate approach to CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and Mitofsky is for special prosecutors to be appointed and exhaustive discovery to ensue. The point of my post is that they had one of two choices during the night of 2 Nov 2004 and the next day:

1. Openly state that something screwy happened and begin investigative journalism to get to the source of it; or,

2. Try to bury it and hope the stench would not be noticed.

They failed on both 1 and 2.

It's our turn; it's the "We the People's" turn. So, now, we the people are in charge and we need to demand an exhaustive investigation of the '2004 exit poll farce' as just one of the many actions that need to happen once the challenge to the 2004 national election begins on 6 Jan 2005.

I repeat, anything that they try to release and spin as 'fact' from this point on should be regarded as conflicted until exhaustive independent investigation reveals otherwise.

We have allowed too many folk to tamper with our Constitutional rights and with our franchise of democracy. It is time for us to call halt, investigate and, with a fair and diligent mechanism for verification that each vote is counted as intended, RE-VOTE.

Thank you for your comments.

[GuvWurld]

10. There is no BASIS for confidence - The No Confidence Movement

This thread really relies upon a word I have long regarded as the crux - BASIS. The No Confidence Resolution states "there is no basis for confidence in the legitimacy of US federal elections."

This is a detailed blueprint for change based on what happens when We The People work together rather than hoping we can get politicians or the media to commit political suicide. Leopards won't change their spots.