Click Here to download the Introduction as a pdf


The following study of suspect Proposition 8 election results in Los Angeles County, CA, is drawn from data gathered in EDA's Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) analysis of the 2008 Presidential election, which reports similarly questionable election results in several states.

Although this exit poll analysis cannot provide conclusive proof of election fraud (because such proof would require access to memory cards and computer code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does provide the strongest indirect proof available that election results have almost certainly been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting systems.

Deviations between exit polls and official results far outside margins of error, cannot be explained away by demographics or polling factors. The facts established in these reports cannot responsibly be dismissed or evaded.

Election Defense Alliance calls on legislators, secretaries of state, attorneys general, the voting public, and especially candidates in upcoming elections, to read these reports and seriously confront their implications.

  ___________________________________________________________________

 An EDA Investigative Report

'Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) appears to have been corrupted.

There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and official results
even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8.

The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide,
indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County.'

For the Introduction and Executive Summary:
http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/intro&exsum.pdf

CITIZEN EXIT POLLS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS 

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

 

Download the PDF

Appendices added

Related report: Introduction and Executive Summary
_________________________________________

Abstract

 Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the inescapable conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) was corrupted. The data were drawn from questionnaires filled out by 6326 voters at ten polling places scattered across Los Angeles County, and were properly adjusted to match the gender, age, race, and party affiliation of the electorate.

For Proposition 4 (which would have required parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortions), the official results differ from the adjusted exit poll data by only 0.64%. But for Proposition 8, the disparity between the official results and the adjusted exit poll data is 5.74%, enough to affect the margin by 11.48%. Because Los Angeles County comprised 24.23% of the statewide electorate, an error of that magnitude would have affected the statewide margin by 2.78%, accounting for most of the official 4.48% statewide margin of victory. There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and the official results even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8. The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide, indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County. 

Click Here to download the Introduction as a pdf


The following study of suspect Proposition 8 election results in Los Angeles County, CA, is drawn from data gathered in EDA's Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) analysis of the 2008 Presidential election, which reports similarly questionable election results in several states.

Although this exit poll analysis cannot provide conclusive proof of election fraud (because such proof would require access to memory cards and computer code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does provide the strongest indirect proof available that election results have almost certainly been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting systems.

Deviations between exit polls and official results far outside margins of error, cannot be explained away by demographics or polling factors. The facts established in these reports cannot responsibly be dismissed or evaded.

Election Defense Alliance calls on legislators, secretaries of state, attorneys general, the voting public, and especially candidates in upcoming elections, to read these reports and seriously confront their implications.

  ___________________________________________________________________

 An EDA Investigative Report

'Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) appears to have been corrupted.

There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and official results
even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8.

The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide,
indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County.'

For the Introduction and Executive Summary:
http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/intro&exsum.pdf

CITIZEN EXIT POLLS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS 

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

 

Download the PDF

Appendices added

Related report: Introduction and Executive Summary
_________________________________________

Abstract

 Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the inescapable conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) was corrupted. The data were drawn from questionnaires filled out by 6326 voters at ten polling places scattered across Los Angeles County, and were properly adjusted to match the gender, age, race, and party affiliation of the electorate.

For Proposition 4 (which would have required parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortions), the official results differ from the adjusted exit poll data by only 0.64%. But for Proposition 8, the disparity between the official results and the adjusted exit poll data is 5.74%, enough to affect the margin by 11.48%. Because Los Angeles County comprised 24.23% of the statewide electorate, an error of that magnitude would have affected the statewide margin by 2.78%, accounting for most of the official 4.48% statewide margin of victory. There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and the official results even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8. The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide, indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County. 

Click Here to download the Introduction as a pdf


The following study of suspect Proposition 8 election results in Los Angeles County, CA, is drawn from data gathered in EDA's Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) analysis of the 2008 Presidential election, which reports similarly questionable election results in several states.

Although this exit poll analysis cannot provide conclusive proof of election fraud (because such proof would require access to memory cards and computer code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does provide the strongest indirect proof available that election results have almost certainly been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting systems.

Deviations between exit polls and official results far outside margins of error, cannot be explained away by demographics or polling factors. The facts established in these reports cannot responsibly be dismissed or evaded.

Election Defense Alliance calls on legislators, secretaries of state, attorneys general, the voting public, and especially candidates in upcoming elections, to read these reports and seriously confront their implications.

  ___________________________________________________________________

 An EDA Investigative Report

'Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) appears to have been corrupted.

There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and official results
even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8.

The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide,
indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County.'

CITIZEN EXIT POLLS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS 

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

 

Download the PDF

Appendices added

Related report: Introduction and Executive Summary
_________________________________________

Abstract

 Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the inescapable conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) was corrupted. The data were drawn from questionnaires filled out by 6326 voters at ten polling places scattered across Los Angeles County, and were properly adjusted to match the gender, age, race, and party affiliation of the electorate.

For Proposition 4 (which would have required parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortions), the official results differ from the adjusted exit poll data by only 0.64%. But for Proposition 8, the disparity between the official results and the adjusted exit poll data is 5.74%, enough to affect the margin by 11.48%. Because Los Angeles County comprised 24.23% of the statewide electorate, an error of that magnitude would have affected the statewide margin by 2.78%, accounting for most of the official 4.48% statewide margin of victory. There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and the official results even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8. The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide, indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County. 

Click Here to download the Introduction as a pdf


The following study of suspect Proposition 8 election results in Los Angeles County, CA, is drawn from data gathered in EDA's Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) analysis of the 2008 Presidential election, which reports similarly questionable election results in several states.

Although this exit poll analysis cannot provide conclusive proof of election fraud (because such proof would require access to memory cards and computer code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does provide the strongest indirect proof available that election results have almost certainly been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting systems.

Deviations between exit polls and official results far outside margins of error, cannot be explained away by demographics or polling factors. The facts established in these reports cannot responsibly be dismissed or evaded.

Election Defense Alliance calls on legislators, secretaries of state, attorneys general, the voting public, and especially candidates in upcoming elections, to read these reports and seriously confront their implications.

  ___________________________________________________________________

 An EDA Investigative Report

'Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) appears to have been corrupted.

There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and official results
even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8.

The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide,
indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County.'

CITIZEN EXIT POLLS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS 

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

 

Download the PDF

Appendices added

Related report: Introduction and Executive Summary
_________________________________________

Abstract

 Exhaustive analysis of exit polls conducted in Los Angeles County has led to the inescapable conclusion that the vote count for Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) was corrupted. The data were drawn from questionnaires filled out by 6326 voters at ten polling places scattered across Los Angeles County, and were properly adjusted to match the gender, age, race, and party affiliation of the electorate.

For Proposition 4 (which would have required parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortions), the official results differ from the adjusted exit poll data by only 0.64%. But for Proposition 8, the disparity between the official results and the adjusted exit poll data is 5.74%, enough to affect the margin by 11.48%. Because Los Angeles County comprised 24.23% of the statewide electorate, an error of that magnitude would have affected the statewide margin by 2.78%, accounting for most of the official 4.48% statewide margin of victory. There were not enough Republican voters to account for the disparity between the exit poll and the official results even if every Republican non-responder voted for Proposition 8. The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll showed a similar disparity statewide, indicating that altered vote counts may not be limited to Los Angeles County. 

The Ballot Propositions

 

Citizen exit polls were conducted by trained volunteers on behalf of Election Defense Alliance (EDA) on November 4, 2008 at 37 sites in eight states, including ten polling places in Los Angeles County. The purpose was not only to collect demographic data (gender, age, race, and party affiliation) for election analysis, but also to reach a large enough sample of voters at the polls to verify (or question) the official results. In Los Angeles, four ballot propositions (as well as the presidential election and some local contests) were included on the questionnaire handed to voters. Two of these propositions are of limited use as analytical tools for election verification:

 

Proposition 1A was a bond issue for a high-speed passenger train. It passed with 52.7% of the vote, according to the official results. Support for Proposition 1A was geographically based. Among the 25 most populated counties in California (those with more than 100,000 ballots cast), Proposition 1A received more than 60% of the vote in seven counties on or near San Francisco Bay (San Francisco 78.4%, Marin 65.2%, Sonoma 63.9%, Alameda 62.8%, San Mateo 61.1%, Santa Clara 60.4%, and Santa Cruz 60.2%). Nowhere else was support for Proposition 1A that high, although it did receive 59.1% of the vote in nearby Monterey County. Its next best showing among the 25 most populated counties was 55.6% in Los Angeles County. These would be the counties with the most to gain from the passage of Proposition 1A.

 

Proposition 11 was a Constitutional amendment involving redistricting of legislative districts. It was defeated in 2005, but passed in 2008 with 50.9% of the vote, according to the official results. It was defeated soundly in San Francisco County, receiving only 36.9% of the vote. But in 21 of the 25 most populated counties, the vote was very close; support for Proposition 11 ranged only from 46.8% to 55.8% (the other exceptions being 59.1% in Placer County, 57.5% in Marin County, and 44.8% in Alameda County), with little or no apparent correlation with party affiliation. In no county other than San Francisco did Proposition 11 receive more than 60% or less than 40% of the vote.

 

The other two ballot propositions are well suited for direct comparison. Proposition 4 was a Constitutional Amendment requiring a waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. It had been defeated twice before, in 2005 and in 2006, and was defeated for the third time in 2008, winning only 48.0% of the vote statewide, according to the official results. Proposition 8 was a Constitutional Amendment eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. According to the Edison-Mitofsky statewide exit poll, Proposition 8 was headed for defeat by a margin of 52% to 48%. Instead it passed statewide with 52.2% of the vote, according to the official results. Because of the unexpected passage of Proposition 8, election integrity advocates have wondered aloud if the official results were legitimate.

 

TABLE 1: OFFICIAL RESULTS IN THE TWENTY-FIVE MOST POPULATED COUNTIES

 

	Yes 1A	No 1A	Yes 4	No 4	Yes 8	No 8	Yes 11	No 11
Alameda	62.8%	37.2%	35.7%	64.3%	38.0%	62.0%	44.8%	55.2%
Contra Costa	54.4%	45.6%	41.7%	58.3%	44.6%	55.4%	51.8%	48.2%
Fresno	55.5%	44.5%	60.0%	40.0%	68.7%	31.3%	52.4%	47.6%
Kern	50.8%	49.2%	65.5%	34.5%	75.3%	24.7%	47.6%	52.4%
Los Angeles	55.6%	44.4%	46.2%	53.8%	50.0%	50.0%	47.6%	52.4%
Marin	65.2%	34.8%	25.6%	74.4%	24.9%	75.1%	57.5%	42.5%
Monterey	59.1%	40.9%	43.8%	56.2%	48.4%	51.6%	46.8%	53.2%
Orange	43.6%	56.4%	54.4%	45.6%	57.7%	42.3%	55.0%	45.0%
Placer	39.6%	60.4%	50.3%	49.7%	59.8%	40.2%	59.1%	40.9%
Riverside	49.0%	51.0%	60.1%	39.9%	64.7%	35.3%	53.3%	46.7%
Sacramento	47.7%	52.3%	46.2%	53.8%	53.9%	46.1%	55.8%	44.2%
San Bernardino	46.2%	53.8%	59.2%	40.8%	66.8%	33.2%	51.7%	48.3%
San Diego	48.5%	51.5%	52.8%	47.2%	53.8%	46.2%	54.4%	45.6%
San Francisco	78.4%	21.6%	24.6%	75.4%	24.8%	75.2%	36.9%	63.1%
San Joaquin	53.3%	46.7%	55.6%	44.4%	65.5%	34.5%	50.3%	49.7%
San Luis Obispo	46.3%	53.7%	44.6%	55.4%	51.1%	48.9%	50.6%	49.4%
San Mateo	61.1%	38.9%	37.4%	62.6%	38.2%	61.8%	51.0%	49.0%
Santa Barbara	54.2%	45.8%	42.5%	57.5%	46.4%	53.6%	53.1%	46.9%
Santa Clara	60.4%	39.6%	43.1%	56.9%	44.2%	55.8%	53.2%	46.8%
Santa Cruz	60.2%	39.8%	27.8%	72.2%	28.7%	71.3%	50.3%	49.7%
Solano	53.9%	46.1%	50.2%	49.8%	55.9%	44.1%	52.3%	47.7%
Sonoma	63.9%	36.1%	33.2%	66.8%	33.5%	66.5%	53.0%	47.0%
Stanislaus	49.0%	51.0%	59.8%	40.2%	67.9%	32.1%	52.0%	48.0%
Tulare	44.9%	55.1%	65.8%	34.2%	75.1%	24.9%	49.8%	50.2%
Ventura	48.5%	51.5%	49.5%	50.5%	52.9%	47.1%	51.7%	48.3%
State Totals	52.7%	47.3%	48.0%	52.0%	52.2%	47.8%	50.9%	49.1%

 

NOTE: These were the twenty-five counties with 100,000 or more ballots cast. The thirteen counties with more than 250,000 ballots cast are shown in blue. The percentages do not include “undervotes” – those who did not vote on the proposition. Only the “yes” and “no” votes are included in the calculations.

 

Proposition 4 is clearly the most reasonable benchmark with which to compare Proposition 8, because both were hot-button social issues with overlapping support among the electorate. Exit poll data bear this out. In the ten polling places combined, 66.63% voted in favor of both propositions, or against both propositions; only 23.08% voted for one proposition and against the other (6.67% voted on one or the other, but not both; and 3.62% voted on neither proposition). (See Table 2)

 

TABLE 2: EXIT POLL DATA FOR ALL TEN POLLING PLACES COMBINED,

SHOWING OVERLAPPING ELECTORATE ON PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8

 

 

Statewide, as stated above, Proposition 8 received 52.2% of the vote and Proposition 4 received only 48.0% of the vote, a differential of 4.2%, according to the official results. This pattern, with Proposition 8 running ahead of Proposition 4, appeared in 24 of the 25 most populated counties, the differential ranging from 0.2% in San Francisco County to 9.9% in San Joaquin County. The only exception was Marin County, where Proposition 4, with 25.6% of the vote, ran 0.7% ahead of Proposition 8, with 24.9% of the vote.

 

If the official results are true and correct, one would expect those results to be closely matched by exit polls. In the ten polling places in Los Angeles County where citizen exit polls were conducted, Proposition 8 ran 3.68% ahead of Proposition 4, according to the official results. But according to the exit polls, the reverse was true – Proposition 4 ran 2.01% ahead of Proposition 8 (see Table 3), which amounts to a disparity of 5.69%. Looked at another way, both propositions ran better in the official results than in the exit polls -- Proposition 4 by 2.06%, and Proposition 8 by 7.75%, which amounts to the same differential of 5.69%. Again, these percentages do not include “undervotes.”

 

TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF EXIT POLL DATA AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR

PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8, ALL TEN POLLING PLACES COMBINED

 

 

NOTE: In California, absentee voters can hand deliver their ballots at the polls. In this report, absentee voters are not included in the exit poll data or in the official results, so the data are directly comparable.

 

This disparity appears in all ten polling places, and always in the same direction. (See Table 4) Proposition 8 always fares better relative to Proposition 4 in the official results than in the exit polls; the disparities range from 2.2% at Topanga to 10.5% at Long Beach. Considered alone, Proposition 8 fares better in the official results than in the exit polls in 9 of 10 polling places, by 7.75% overall; the differentials reach 11.3% at Eagle Rock, and 17.7% at Glendale, and the disparities between the margins of victory or defeat (that is, the point spread) would be twice as much. For example, at Glendale, Proposition 8 lost by 29.0% in the exit poll, but passed by 6.4% in the official results; the disparity in the point spread is 35.4%.

 

When comparing exit poll data with official results, it is common practice to compare the difference in the point spread. Think of it this way. If we are dividing a bushel of apples, and I have three more than half, and you have three less than half, I have six more than you do. This method works even if there are more than two choices on the ballot, in which case the difference between the exit poll data and the official results may be greater for one candidate than another.

 

Proposition 4, considered alone, fares better in the official results than in the exit polls by only 2.06%, which suggests that the sample of voters responding to the exit poll was quite representative of the electorate. Moreover, Proposition 4 fares better in the official results than in the exit polls in only 5 of 10 polling places, which is exactly what one would expect from a reliable exit poll. The disparities should balance out – some in one direction, and some in the other. The very fact that this was the case in regard to one proposition but not the other suggests the official results for Proposition 8 are wrong.

 

There are four possible reasons for a large disparity between exit polls and official results: (1) a basic flaw in the exit poll methodology; (2) many voters lying on the questionnaire; (3) a non-representative sample of voters responding; or (4) the official results being erroneous or fraudulent. Let us consider the first three possibilities one at a time.

 

It is very hard to argue that some flaw in the exit poll methodology would be responsible for a glaring disparity concerning Proposition 8 and not with Proposition 4. While I shall leave it to those who conducted the exit polls to explain their methodology, I must note that the exit polls in Los Angeles County were organized by Judy Alter, who had already done this five times previously. The number of voters responding – 6326 in Los Angeles County alone – was larger than the statewide sample relied upon by Edison-Mitofsky, and amounted to 54.28% of the total ballots cast in these ten polling places.

 

It is difficult to believe that many voters lied on the questionnaires, as this explanation would require that voters in all ten polling places lied about how they voted on Proposition 8, but told the truth about Proposition 4. Note that in 8 of 10 polling places, the disparity between the exit poll percentages and the official results is greater for Proposition 8 than for Proposition 4.

 

And it seems unlikely that in ten different polling places, scattered all over Los Angeles County, in a variety of neighborhoods with many different ethnic groups, the voters responding to the exit poll comprised a more representative sample for Proposition 4 than for Proposition 8. These were the same voters, in the same polling places, on the same day. Both Proposition 4 and Proposition 8 were hot-button social issues. More often than not, those who supported one proposition support the other, and those who opposed one proposition would oppose the other.

 And yet, in all 10 polling places, Proposition 8 fares better relative to Proposition 4 in the official results than in the exit polls, by 5.69% overall. And in 9 of 10 polling places, Proposition 8 fares better in the official results than in the exit polls, by 7.75% overall. Such glaring disparities are a red flag. A serious investigation is warranted.

 

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF EXIT POLLS AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR

PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8, ALL TEN POLLING PLACES INDIVIDUALLY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF EXIT POLLS AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR

PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8, ALL TEN POLLING PLACES INDIVIDUALLY (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the official results, Proposition 8 was defeated by 599,602 votes statewide. Los Angeles County comprised 24.23% of the electorate for Proposition 8, with 3,246,959 persons voting on it (see Table 5). If 5.69 to 7.75% of the votes on Proposition 8 in Los Angeles County were shifted from one column to the other, from “no” to “yes,” as suggested by the exit polls in ten different polling places, this would affect the margin (the point spread) by twice those percentages, by some 370,000 to 500,000 votes. And if the vote count was altered elsewhere in the state, the will of the voters may have been reversed.

 

TABLE 5: OFFICIAL RESULTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND STATEWIDE

 

 

A working hypothesis must be that the official results are true and correct, and that the disparities between the exit polls and the official results are due to non-representative samples of voters responding to the exit poll. In order to test this hypothesis, we must compare the demographics (gender, age, race), and the party affiliations, of the voters who participated in the exit polls (the responders) to the voters not responding (the refusals). This underscores the importance of collecting “refusal data,” as was done in this poll. The exit pollsters noted the gender, race, and estimated age of each voter who was approached but declined to respond. These data can be compared to the responses on the questionnaires filled out by the participating voters. Based upon this information, the raw data for the exit poll can be adjusted accordingly, to better reflect the demographic makeup of the electorate.

Gender Bias

When the demographic data from the exit polls are examined, a gender bias is immediately apparent. Among the 5451 responders who identified their gender, 3220 (59.07%) were women, and 2231 (40.93%) were men. This imbalance is found at all ten polling places (see Table 6).

 

TABLE 6: EXIT POLL RESPONDERS, BY GENDER

 

 

This gender imbalance would obviously have had some effect on the outcome of the exit polls, because the data show a “gender gap” in the vote count. In the ten polling places combined, Proposition 4 gained the support of 41.88% of the men and 39.62% of the women, a differential of 2.26%. Proposition 8 gained the support of 40.48% of the men and 35.84% of the women, a differential of 4.64% (see Table 7).

 

TABLE 7: EXIT POLL VOTE TOTALS FOR BALLOT PROPOSITIONS, BY GENDER

 

 

This “gender gap” appears in 9 of 10 polling places, the lone exception being Long Beach, where women were more likely than men to support both ballot propositions. However, there were some polling places where the differential was insignificant – for example, Proposition 4 at Locke High School and in Lynwood, and Proposition 8 in Santa Monica and Topanga. A detailed breakdown of the vote on the ballot propositions, by gender, age, race and party affiliation, for each polling place, is presented in the Appendix.

Ideally, one would find out how many men and women voted at the polls and adjust the exit poll data accordingly. However, in Los Angeles County, poll books are not available for public inspection, and the Registrar of Voters wants $250 for two countywide files from which it would take weeks to extract the data manually and match up the voter histories with the gender. Under the circumstances, the best approach is to make a conservative assumption, and a 50-50 split meets this requirement because women generally do outnumber men at the polls. Moreover, support for both Proposition 4 and Proposition 8 was greater among men than among women, so adjusting to a 50-50 split will overstate support for both propositions.

To adjust for the “gender gap” is a straightforward mathematical process. Let us begin with a simple hypothetical example not dissimilar to the exit poll data. Suppose there are 25 responders in the exit poll. Only 20 identify their gender, and of these, 12 (60.0%) are women, and 8 (40.0%) are men. The vote count is 17 (68%) to 8 (32%). The breakdown is 9 to 3 among women, 5 to 3 among men, and 3 to 2 among those who did not identify their gender.

To adjust the vote count to a 50%-50% balance by gender, we multiply the numbers for women by 50/60 (or divide by 1.2), and we multiply the numbers for men by 50/40 (or divide by 0.8). I prefer to divide, because the adjustment factors are easy to determine – 1.2 for 60%, 0.8 for 40%, and so on. The adjusted count becomes 7.5 to 2.5 among women, and 6.25 to 3.75 among men, and remains 3 to 2 among those who did not identify their gender. The adjusted total count is now 16.75 (67%) to 8.25 (33%) – not much of a difference (see Table 8).

 

TABLE 8: HYPOTHETICAL EXIT POLL ADJUSTMENTS

 

 

Let us suppose, in another hypothetical example, that all women voted one way and all men voted the other way. If the breakdown is 12 to 0 among women, 0 to 8 among men, and 3 to 2 among those who did not identify their gender, for a total vote count of 15 (60%) to 10 (40%), the adjusted count becomes 10 to 0 among women, 0 to 10 among men, and 3 to 2 among those who did not identify their gender, for an adjusted total count of 13 (52%) to 12 (48%) – only an 8% difference (see Table 12). This begins to explain what pollsters mean when they talk about the “margin of error.” There are very real limits as to how inaccurate an exit poll can be (see Table 9).

 

TABLE 9: HYPOTHETICAL EXIT POLL ADJUSTMENTS

 

 

When this methodology is applied to the exit poll results from Los Angeles County, in order to adjust for the obvious gender imbalance among the responders, we find that it makes very little difference at all (see Table 10). Proposition 8 still fares 7.29% better (instead of 7.75%) in the official results than in the exit polls. Proposition 4 still fares 1.84% better (instead of 2.06%) in the official results than in the exit polls. And the disparities, relative to each other, are still 5.45% (instead of 5.79%).

 

TABLE 10: COMPARISON OF EXIT POLL DATA, ADJUSTED FOR GENDER,

AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8

 

 

These adjusted numbers are derived from the sum totals of the adjustments calculated for all ten polling places individually. The calculations are set forth in full detail in the Appendix, and the adjusted numbers for each polling place for Propositions 4 and 8 are presented here (see Table 11).

Even with the percentages adjusted to account for gender imbalance, Proposition 8 still runs better in the official results than in the exit polls in 9 of 10 polling places, by as much as 17.3% in Glendale, 11.1% in Eagle Rock, 7.1% in Topanga, 6.3% in Santa Monica, and 6.3% at Lockhurst. Proposition 8 still runs better relative to Proposition 4 in the official results than in the exit polls in all ten polling places, by as much as 10.2% in Long Beach, 8.9% in Glendale, 7.7% in Lynwood, 6.7% in Berendo, and 6.5% in Eagle Rock (see Table 11).

Thus it is shown that the glaring disparities between the exit polls and the official results for Proposition 8 are simply not attributable to “gender bias” in the exit polls.

 

TABLE 11: COMPARISON OF ADJUSTED EXIT POLL DATA, ADJUSTED FOR GENDER, AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 11: COMPARISON OF ADJUSTED EXIT POLL DATA, ADJUSTED FOR GENDER, AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR PROPOSITIONS 4 AND 8 (continued)