The United States Department of State observes elections around the world using international election observers. After a foreign election, the State Department either certifies that the election was a free and fair election or it refuses to make such a certification.
An international election observer has written that if the November 8, 2016 U.S. election had occurred anywhere outside the United States, the U.S. State Department would have refused to certify that the election was a free and fair election. Further, the State Department would have reported that there is a “suspicion of fraud or error.”
The State Department uses exit polls to determine whether it will make a certification for a given foreign election (See Department of State's “Vote Count Verification” document). According to the international election observer, the reason the State Department would refuse to certify the election was free and fair is the shift in results from the exit polls to the reported vote counts.
When observing a foreign election, the State Department will pay for one unadjusted exit poll. This unadjusted exit poll will not be adjusted as it is in the United States to create an adjusted exit poll about which more will appear 12 paragraphs below. The State Department determines whether the foreign election was free and fair based on a comparison of the official vote count to the single unadjusted exit poll.
In order to understand the view of the international election observer and the State Department, one must understand a few things about polls in general and exit polls.
The results of a typical pre-election poll are stated as Candidate Jones 52%, Candidate Smith 48% with a 3% margin of error at a 95% level of confidence. The 95% level of confidence means that 95% of the time if the pollsters had received responses from everyone who voted, the vote for Candidate Jones would have been between 55% and 49% which is 52% plus or minus 3% and the vote for Candidate Smith would have been between 51% and 45% which is 48% plus or minus 3%.
Similar statements can be made about an exit poll.
You can see below the graphs of the unadjusted exit poll data. The television networks broadcast the unadjusted exit poll data on Election Night as the polls closed in the various states. The vote share numbers are the numbers certified by the various states. (continued below)
2016 Exit Poll Data
2016 Exit Poll Graphs and Data showing statistically significant issues with the final vote tallies.
2004 Exit Poll data
2004 Exit Poll Graphs and Data showing statistically significant issues with the vote tallies.
Because the exit poll is not conducted at every polling place, it has been suggested that the margin of error should be increased from the MOE calculated using the normal formula. A 30% increase was suggested in what is apparently the only academic-type paper on the topic (see Merkle, D. and Edelman, M. “A Review of the 1996 Voter News Service Exit Polls from a Total Survey Error Perspective,” in Election Polls, the News Media and Democracy, ed. P.J. Lavrakas,M.W. Traugott, New York: Chatham House, pp. 68 - 72). Accordingly, while not necessarily agreeing that an increase as large as 30% should be used, the MOE in each of the linked graphs has been increased by 30% from the MOE calculated using the normal formula. An increase of less than 30% would mean that the likelihood of the official results being correct given the unadjusted exit poll results is even less than the already small probabilities shown in the linked graphs.
In North Carolina, the unadjusted exit poll shows Donald Trump losing with 46.5% (while Hillary Clinton won the unadjusted exit poll with 48.6%). For Trump’s 46.5% exit poll result, the 95% confidence interval is from 44.5% to 48.5%. This means that if all people who voted in North Carolina were asked to state who they voted for, 95% of the time Trump’s percentage of the vote in North Carolina would have been between 44.5% and 48.5%. In fact, all the people who voted in North Carolina were asked to state who they voted for. They answered when they cast their ballots. The certified percentage for Trump in North Carolina was 50.5%. This result is so far outside the 95% confidence interval that it would be expected to occur by chance only once in 18,000 U.S. Presidential elections. Given that Presidential elections occur once every four years, the means that with an exit poll percentage of 46.5%, one would expect to see Trumps’certified winning total of 50.5% about once every 72,000 years.
In Florida, where Trump lost in the exit poll with 46.4% but won in the certified result with 49.1%, the result is expected to occur by chance once every 880 years.
The states of North Carolina and Florida have 44 electoral votes. These 44 electoral votes plus the 227 Clinton won in the certified result of the Electoral College would have given her the victory with a total of 271 electoral votes.
Further, in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton had an exit poll share of 50.5% (and the exit poll loser,Donald Trump, had 46.1%). The 95% confidence interval on Hillary Clinton’s exit poll share of 50.5% is from 48.0% to 53.0% but her official vote share was outside the margin of error at only 47.6%. This result is expected to occur by chance once every 340 years.
In Wisconsin, where Trump lost in the exit poll with 44.3% but won in the certified result with 47.8%, the result is expected to occur by chance once every 2,440 years.
In short, it is theoretically possible that Trump won by chance but it is highly improbable.
An adjusted exit poll is created by the exit pollsters after the polls have been closed for several hours, typically around midnight Eastern time. As far as is publicly known about the murky and publicly non-transparent process, the adjusted exit poll is based on a re-weighting of the unadjusted exit poll results to make the adjusted exit poll results conform more closely to the then available results. Once it is issued, the adjusted exit poll is thereafter referred to as “the exit poll” by almost the entire U.S. journalistic and political community. There is typically no, or very little, reference to an unadjusted exit poll or even to the existence of an unadjusted exit poll. The reports for years after a U.S. election about how various demographic groups voted are based on the adjusted exit poll which means that if the adjusted exit poll does not accurately state how the ballots were cast, the statements and reports about how various groups voted are also permanently incorrect. As Dr. Jonathan Simon and others have noted because the participation levels for various groups (e.g., percentage identifying as Republicans and percentage identifying as Democrats) as shown by one election’s adjusted exit poll are used to determine how to weight later pre-election polls and unadjusted exit polls, an incorrect adjusted exit poll can lead to errors in future pre-election polls and unadjusted exit polls, substantial public misunderstanding, and deception of the public and uncomprehending journalists and politicians for many years. (See CR2020 (CODE RED: Computerized Elections and The War on American Democracy, Election 2020 Edition; url: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B087H83JCR/, p. 78 (footnotes 130-132) and p.324)
The unadjusted exit poll results (from which the adjusted exit polls are derived) are broadcast by the National Election Pool (NEP) as the polls close in each state. For 2016, the members of the National Election Pool (NEP) paying for the exit poll and broadcasting and distributing the unadjusted exit poll results (and, after its creation, the adjusted exit poll result) were ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC. For the 2020 election, the members of the National Election Pool paying for both versions of the exit poll and broadcasting the results are ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. The adjustments from the unadjusted exit poll to the adjusted exit poll are based on the assumption that the reported results “must” accurately reflect how the ballots were cast.
The State Department does not make this assumption anywhere else in the world. The laws of statistics do not change at the United States border.
There is no law of nature supporting the assumption on which the adjusted exit poll results are based in the United States. That is, there is no law of nature that the official results must accurately report how the ballots were marked when cast by the voters.
As shown by the graphs of unadjusted exit poll and certified vote count results from 2004, a similar capability to tamper with the result of a Presidential election was also demonstrated in 2004 with the result that John Kerry was not inaugurated. Such tampering with the vote for President actually occurred in Ohio in 2004. This tampering with the vote count was confirmed by a Republican Director of a county Board of Elections who admitted that an electronic vote counting system included votes never lawfully cast in the certified total for President in his county in 2004. (Link to article)
Whether or not intended, in the U.S. the adjusted exit poll serves to obscure the meaning of the unadjusted exit poll when it is compared with an official vote count outside the margin of error of the unadjusted exit poll. The meaning is that the official vote count does not accurately state how the voters voted. In effect, some person (or persons) unlawfully tampered with the ballots.
In foreign nations, when the party or regime which is seeking election or re-election pays for all versions of an exit poll (unadjusted and adjusted), the regime is free to request and obtain an adjusted exit poll which more closely matches the reported vote count than does the original unadjusted exit poll. The State Department does not pay for an adjusted exit poll given that the State Department pays for one exit poll per foreign country observed for the purpose of checking on the officially reported results (and not for the purpose of legitimizing for the regime an inaccurate vote count which does not accurately report how the ballots were marked by the voters).
There are only two possibilities with respect to the certified vote count, either the wildly improbable vote counts occurred by chance or they did not. If the vote counts did not occur by chance, they occurred because some person or persons arranged for them to occur. The exit poll to vote count vote shift and the graphs do not reveal who caused such a shift or how such a shift was caused. They do indicate that if the shift were deliberate, the shift was deliberately caused by someone who wanted Donald Trump to win. The graphs do not establish that Donald Trump or anyone acting for him had anything to do with what it appears probable was deliberate tampering with the result of the Presidential election.
According to research performed by Theodore de Macedo Soares of the website tdmsresearch.com, the same type of shifting outside the margin of error occurred in the spring primaries, where, out of 27 Democratic primaries where exit poll results were analyzed, the exit poll results shifted outside the margin of error as measured by Mr. Soares against Bernie Sanders 12 times and there were no shifts outside the MOE against Hillary Clinton. It is theoretically possible but highly improbable that such results occurred by chance. By way of comparison, in the 23 Republican primaries where exit poll results were analyzed by Mr. Soares, there were 2 shifts outside the margin of error in the primaries against Donald Trump and no shifts outside the MOE against any other Republican candidate.
Again, there are only two possibilities with respect to the certified vote count in the 2016 Democratic spring primaries, either the wildly improbable vote counts occurred by chance or they did not. If the vote counts did not occur by chance, they occurred because some person or persons arranged for them to occur. The unadjusted exit poll to vote count shift and the graphs do not reveal who caused such a shift or how such a shift was caused. They do indicate that if the shift were deliberate, the shift was deliberately caused by someone who wanted Hillary Clinton to win or, alternatively, someone who wanted Bernie Sanders to lose and be unable to challenge Donald Trump in November. The graphs do not establish that Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, or anyone acting for either of them had anything to do with what it appears probable was deliberate tampering with the result of the Democratic primaries in 2016.
Further, as shown in the graphs, the Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate (52 to 48 ) when the new Congress began in January 2017 because three Republicans won Senate seats with an official vote count outside the margin of error of the unadjusted exit poll.
In Missouri, where Jason Kander won in the unadjusted exit poll with 52.3% and lost in the official vote count with 46.2%, the result is expected to occur by chance once every 11,000 U.S. Senate elections.
In Pennsylvania, where Deborah McGinty won in the unadjusted exit poll with 50.0% and lost in the official vote count with 47.2%, the result is expected to occur by chance once every 60 U.S.Senate elections.
In Wisconsin, where Russ Feingold won in the unadjusted exit poll with 50.7% and lost in the official vote count with 46.8%, the result is expected to occur by chance once every 1,900 U.S.Senate elections.
Without what appears to have been deliberate tampering with the vote counts in Missouri,Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the Democrats would have controlled the Senate (51-49) beginning in January 2017.
Again, there are only two possibilities with respect to the certified vote counts in the 2016 Senate elections in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, either the wildly improbable vote counts occurred by chance or they did not. If the vote counts did not occur by chance, they occurred because some person or persons arranged for them to occur. The exit poll to vote count vote shift and the graphs do not reveal who caused such a shift or how such a shift was caused. They do indicate that if the shift were deliberate, the shift was deliberately caused by one or more persons who wanted the Republicans to control the Senate. The graphs do not establish that Donald Trump, or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, or anyone acting for either of them had anything to do with what it appears probable was deliberate tampering with the three Senate elections and control of the U.S. Senate.
The act of voting, just going to a local polling place and casting a ballot, is the only means by which the power to govern is legitimately conferred in our nation. This act is the essence of our national security. An attack on any part of the voting process is in effect an attack on our nation. These attacks do not involve or require guns, or troops, or planes, or air craft carriers. Without security for the entire voting process, our essential national security is severely degraded.
Powell Memorandum
We need to undertand that the current ituation i the end game of a Repulican plan put in place in1970. In that ear, Lewis Powell, then a corporate attorne in Virginia and later a memer of the U upreme Court, wrote a memorandum to the U.. Chamer of Commerce. That memorandum ecame the plan the Repulican have followed ever ince. Read more here.
The future of the Democratic Part require u to create our own plan. We mut have viion, unit, and a olid game plan to move forward. Together.