EDA Exit Polls Generally Match 2008 Election Results, But Find "Wide Disparities" in NH Vote Counts

Tags:

An Election Defense Alliance Investigative Report

Based on Data Obtained from the EDA 2008 Election Verification Exit Poll Project (EVEP)

This report is meant as a warning. It does not provide conclusive proof of election tampering, but what is revealed here is strong enough to suggest that Legislators, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, AND CITIZENS must pay close attention to what is reported in all future elections. Candidates entering races in 2010 Mid-Term Elections should especially read and understand this report and take notice of the current state of our electoral system.

____________________________

'We know that there are huge disparities between the exit poll data and the official results
at all four polling places in New Hampshire, and that adjusting the raw data
to account for party affiliation does not explain them. . . .
We are forced to conclude that it is very possible that the official results in New Hampshire are not true and correct.'
____________________________

CITIZEN EXIT POLLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY:

AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

Download the Report (PDF)

Appendices added

ABSTRACT

Data from citizen exit polls conducted at 28 sites in seven states were found to match closely the official results for President, Senate and Congress at nine polling places (five in California, two in Pennsylvania, one in Ohio, and one in New Mexico). At four polling places (two in New Mexico, one in California, and one in Texas), analysis was inconclusive. At two polling places in Michigan, the official results for 2008 were not inconsistent with established voting patterns. At two polling places in Ohio, the exit polls reflected correctly an erosion of support for the Congressional incumbent. At five polling places in California, the presidential preference of the non-responders closely paralleled their party affiliation. But at six polling places (two in Pennsylvania and four in New Hampshire), large disparities remained between the official results and the exit poll data, even after properly adjusting the data to account for party affiliation, gender, age, and race. The large disparities in the vote count were found at three of these, and we conclude that the official results may be wrong at all six.

INTRODUCTION

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. 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 every state, the presidential election was listed on the questionnaire handed to the voters. For comparative purposes, the Congressional election, the United States Senate contest if any, and some local contests, were included as well. It is the purpose of this paper to compare the exit poll data with the official results and, where large disparities exist, to assess the reasons for those disparities.

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. The first two possibilities are rendered unlikely by the fact that, at numerous polling places, there was little difference between the exit poll data and the official results. Thus, if the official results are true and correct, any large disparities must be due to exit poll responders being non-representative with respect to gender, age, race, or party affiliation. It is shown in an accompanying paper concerning Propositions 4 and 8 in Los Angeles County that party affiliation is the most important of these parameters.

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. In some states, the gender and age of registered voters are specified on the voter rolls. Of utmost importance are the party affiliations of those who voted at the polls, which in some states is a matter of public record, although sometimes difficult to obtain. Based upon this information, the raw data for the exit poll can be adjusted according to gender, race, age, and party affiliation, to better reflect the demographic makeup of the electorate.

OVERVIEW

Not all of the exit polls resulted in worthwhile and useable data. At one polling place in Michigan, only 60 of 835 voters were interviewed; no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such a minimal data set. In San Francisco, and in three of five polling places in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, questionnaires were either lost or possibly mixed up among precincts, leaving us with incomplete and unreliable data sets. At the four polling places in Colorado, election officials have refused to provide a separate vote count for voters at the polls. In Douglas County, Colorado, for example, early voting and absentee ballots accounted for 86.89% of the votes countywide, and 89.51% of the votes in the three precincts where our exit poll was conducted. We are left with no way to make a meaningful comparison between the exit poll data and the official results. But this still leaves us with 28 polling places in seven states. The raw data are shown below.

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL DATA

AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR PRESIDENT

	Official Results		Exit Poll
	McCain	Obama	McCain	Obama

CA LA Taft 9001037A	201 36.0%	346 61.9%	88 28.7%	214 69.7%
CA LA Long Beach 3850101A	120 20.3%	459 77.8%	55 15.8%	285 81.9%
CA LA Berendo 9005399A	127 18.9%	527 78.4%	72 17.5%	331 80.5%
CA LA Santa Monica 6250005A	128 17.0%	614 81.5%	56 10.6%	465 87.7%
CA LA Topanga 710003A 6A	129 12.0%	918 85.3%	26 4.5%	535 93.5%
CA LA Lockhurst 9006489A 90A	405 34.8%	743 63.8%	151 25.8%	421 72.0%
CA LA Glendale 2550120A 120B 122A	393 23.9%	1218 74.0%	106 16.7%	511 80.7%
CA LA Locke 9001145A 9002566A	47 4.2%	1050 94.4%	24 3.3%	698 96.1%
CA LA Eagle Rock 9006334A 6335A	347 28.9%	827 68.9%	157 21.0%	575 76.8%
CA LA Lynwood 3990015A 16A 18A 19A	253 9.3%	2421 89.4%	106 7.7%	1263 91.7%
CA Alameda 280300 280700	95 17.6%	428 79.1%	43 13.0%	286 86.1%
MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	433 43.5%	545 54.7%	134 33.7%	257 64.6%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	752 39.6%	1115 58.7%	195 27.0%	509 70.5%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	1013 33.2%	2003 65.7%	401 26.1%	1106 72.0%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	992 35.6%	1761 63.2%	286 25.0%	832 72.8%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	2499 47.2%	2741 51.8%	746 41.4%	1022 56.7%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	1026 44.6%	1248 54.3%	416 36.7%	692 61.1%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	27 14.1%	161 83.9%	19 13.3%	120 83.9%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	91 21.0%	332 76.7%	51 15.6%	267 81.7%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	13 4.3%	291 95.7%	8 3.4%	224 96.6%
OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	542 40.6%	784 58.7%	229 40.5%	331 58.5%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	1013 57.7%	717 40.8%	307 53.5%	254 44.3%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	676 53.4%	571 45.1%	223 46.8%	246 51.7%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8	107 21.1%	394 78.0%	45 14.4%	264 84.3%
PA Cambria Munster	239 71.6%	89 26.6%	189 71.3%	67 25.3%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	1379 46.7%	1540 52.1%	490 37.1%	816 61.8%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	21 3.8%	535 95.9%	8 1.8%	440 97.8%
TX Harris Houston 34	197 27.9%	483 68.3%	95 20.3%	355 75.7%

NOTE: The official results shown above do not include absentee ballots for California, Michigan and Ohio, and do include absentee ballots for New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Texas.

As shown in Table 1 above, the raw exit poll data, unadjusted for any sample bias with respect to gender, age, race, or party affiliation, are within 2% of the official results in 8 of 28 polling places (three in California, two in New Mexico, one in Ohio, and two in Pennsylvania).

At 20 polling places, the difference between the raw exit poll data and the official results exceeded 2%, thus equating to a disparity of more than 4% in the “point spread” – that is, the margin of victory or defeat. The simplest analysis is to determine, by subtraction, what the vote count must have been among those who declined to participate in the exit poll (the non-responders, or refusals), assuming that the official results are true and correct. The comparison is shown below.

TABLE 2: VOTE COUNT AMONG NON-RESPONDERS,

ASSUMING OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR PRESIDENT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT

	Exit Poll Responders		Non-Responders
	McCain	Obama	McCain	Obama

CA LA Taft 9001037A	88 28.7%	214 69.7%	113 44.8%	132 52.4%
CA LA Long Beach 3850101A	55 15.8%	285 81.9%	65 26.9%	174 71.9%
CA LA Santa Monica 6250005A	56 10.6%	465 87.7%	72 32.3%	149 66.8%
CA LA Topanga 710003A 6A	26 4.5%	535 93.5%	103 20.4%	383 76.0%
CA LA Lockhurst 9006489A 90A	151 25.8%	421 72.0%	254 43.9%	322 55.6%
CA LA Glendale 2550120A 120B 122A	106 16.7%	511 80.7%	287 28.3%	707 69.7%
CA LA Eagle Rock 9006334A 6335A	157 21.0%	575 76.8%	190 42.0%	252 55.8%
CA Alameda 280300 280700	43 12.9%	286 85.6%	52 25.1%	142 68.6%
MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	134 33.7%	257 64.6%	299 50.1%	288 48.2%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	195 27.0%	509 70.5%	557 47.4%	606 51.5%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	401 26.1%	1106 72.0%	612 40.4%	897 59.3%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	286 25.0%	832 72.8%	706 43.0%	929 56.6%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	746 41.4%	1022 56.7%	1753 50.3%	1719 49.3%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	416 36.7%	692 61.1%	610 52.3%	556 47.7%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	51 15.6%	267 81.7%	40 37.7%	65 61.3%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	307 53.5%	254 44.3%	706 59.7%	463 39.1%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	223 46.8%	246 51.7%	453 57.4%	325 41.2%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8	45 14.4%	264 84.3%	62 32.3%	130 67.7%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	490 37.1%	816 61.8%	889 54.4%	724 44.3%
TX Harris Houston 34	95 20.3%	355 75.7%	102 42.5%	128 53.3%

Note that in all 20 cases shown in Table 2 above, the disparities are in the same direction. Obama runs more strongly in the exit polls than in the official results. The disparities between Obama’s percentage among exit poll responders and his presumed percentage among non-responders averages 15.4%, ranging from 5.2% (at Independence, Ohio) to 22.4% (at Houston, Texas). But these disparities are not necessarily due to a corrupted official vote count. They could just as easily be due to an undersampling of Republican voters in the exit polls.

PARTY AFFILIATION

Adjusting exit poll data to account for party affiliation is not always possible. In Michigan, the questionnaire handed to the voters did not ask for their party affiliation, so we lack the relevant exit poll data with which to compare the voter rolls.

In Texas, voters do not register by party, so the voter rolls lack the relevant information with which to compare the exit poll data. In Ohio and New Mexico, election officials compile data at the precinct level for the party affiliation of all registered voters, but this does not reveal how many persons from each party actually voted.

In Ohio, available spreadsheets do show at the precinct level which persons from each party actually voted in November 2008, but the precinct boundaries have been changed since then, and thus the data are comparable only at the village level. But this still leaves us with 18 polling places in three states where the exit poll data can be properly adjusted to account for party affiliation.

In New Hampshire, the voter signature books and absentee voter lists are readily available for public inspection in the clerk’s offices of the individual cities and towns; the party affiliations can be gleaned and tallied from these, as we have done.

In Pennsylvania, the Secretary of State provided a massive database for each and every registered voter in the state, from which we have gleaned, quite tediously, all the desired information -- gender, age, party affiliation, whether or not the person voted, and whether at the polls or by absentee ballot.

For Los Angeles County, a private company provided us with the data for the party affiliations of voters at the polls at all 10 polling places where exit polls were conducted.

In New Hampshire, the voter signature books do not differentiate between third-party and independent voters, and in Pennsylvania our own databases do not make this distinction, so for these states the exit poll responders and the voters at the polls are divided into three categories only – Republicans, Democrats, and all others.

In California, where there are six official political parties, our questionnaires and databases listed them all, together with a category for no party affiliation, and so we are able to present the data in four categories – Republicans, Democrats, third parties, and unaffiliated voters. The comparison of exit poll responders and voters at the polls is shown below.

TABLE 3: PARTY AFFILIATION OF EXIT POLL RESPONDERS AND VOTERS AT POLLS

	Exit Poll Responders				Voters at Polls
	Rep.	Dem.	Other	None	Rep.	Dem.	Other	None

CA LA Taft	25.5%	54.8%	3.9%	15.8%	29.6%	48.6%	3.2%	18.6%
CA LA Long Beach	11.0%	64.9%	5.4%	18.7%	16.7%	60.8%	4.5%	18.1%
CA LA Berendo	10.2%	66.0%	2.8%	21.0%	13.4%	65.7%	3.3%	17.6%
CA LA Santa Monica	10.5%	66.7%	5.1%	17.8%	14.8%	59.2%	4.5%	21.5%
CA LA Topanga	3.6%	66.4%	10.4%	19.5%	9.0%	61.5%	7.1%	22.3%
CA LA Lockhurst	22.4%	53.1%	8.5%	15.9%	29.8%	48.1%	5.2%	17.0%
CA LA Glendale	13.3%	55.1%	6.6%	25.0%	20.5%	48.1%	4.5%	26.9%
CA LA Locke	2.2%	80.1%	2.7%	15.0%	4.6%	77.8%	3.2%	14.5%
CA LA Eagle Rock	14.3%	63.7%	5.8%	16.2%	22.3%	55.7%	3.8%	18.1%
CA LA Lynwood	4.7%	72.6%	3.1%	19.6%	8.1%	74.1%	3.2%	14.6%
NH Manchester 3	18.4%	42.9%	38.7%		21.9%	41.6%	36.5%
NH Manchester 5	17.5%	48.6%	33.9%		20.7%	46.0%	33.3%
NH Nashua 5	25.4%	35.6%	39.0%		27.2%	30.4%	42.4%
NH Wilton	25.0%	36.6%	38.4%		29.9%	31.2%	38.9%
PA Pittsburgh	10.1%	75.3%	14.6%		12.8%	73.5%	13.7%
PA Cambria Munster	42.8%	47.2%	10.0%		40.4%	52.7%	6.9%
PA Centre Harris Twp	39.5%	49.9%	10.6%		47.7%	40.7%	11.6%
PA Philadelphia	3.5%	80.2%	16.4%		6.7%	82.4%	10.9%

As shown in Table 3 above, Republican voters were undersampled in 17 of the 18 polling places where direct comparisons can be made. The differentials were as much as 8.2% in Centre County, Pennsylvania, and 8.0% in Eagle Rock, 7.4% at Lockhurst, 7.2% in Glendale, all in Los Angeles County, California.

It is obvious that some of the disparity between the exit poll data and the official results is due to undersampling of Republicans, and the exit poll data must be adjusted accordingly, as we have done.

The raw data are broken down into groups according to party affiliation, the voting patterns for each group are left unchanged, but the relative weight of each group is adjusted proportionately so that it matches their strength at the polls. (For example, in Wilton, New Hampshire, where 25.0% of the exit poll responders and 29.9% of voters at the polls were Republicans, the exit poll data for Republican voters are multiplied by almost 1.2, and the data for Democrats and Independents are adjusted by the appropriate ratios).

The calculations are set forth in full detail in the appendix; the methodology is explained on pages 8 and 9 of the accompanying paper concerning Propositions 4 and 8 in Los Angeles County; and the results are summarized below.

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL RESULTS AND EXIT POLL DATA

ADJUSTED FOR PARTY AFFILIATION, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

	Official Results		Adjusted Exit Poll Data
	McCain	Obama	McCain	Obama

CA LA Taft 9001037A	201 36.0%	346 61.9%	97.6 31.8%	204.3 66.5%
CA LA Long Beach 3850101A	120 20.3%	459 77.8%	71.2 20.4%	269.6 77.4%
CA LA Berendo 9005399A	127 18.9%	527 78.4%	78.5 19.1%	325.3 79.0%
CA LA Santa Monica 6250005A	128 17.0%	614 81.5%	72.6 13.7%	445.9 84.3%
CA LA Topanga 710003A 6A	129 12.0%	918 85.3%	42.0 7.3%	521.3 91.1%
CA LA Lockhurst 9006489A 90A	405 34.8%	743 63.8%	175.2 30.0%	395.7 67.7%
CA LA Glendale 2550120A 120B 122A	393 23.9%	1218 74.0%	136.7 21.6%	478.2 75.7%
CA LA Locke 9001145A 9002566A	47 4.2%	1050 94.4%	31.3 4.3%	690.1 95.1%
CA LA Eagle Rock 9006334A 6335A	347 28.9%	827 68.9%	204.6 27.4%	524.4 70.2%
CA LA Lynwood 3990015A 16A 18A 19A	253 9.3%	2421 89.4%	138.3 10.0%	1229.6 89.2%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	1013 33.2%	2003 65.7%	437.1 28.4%	1070.6 69.7%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	992 35.6%	1761 63.2%	312.1 27.3%	805.1 70.5%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	2499 47.2%	2741 51.8%	790.5 43.7%	982.4 54.3%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	1026 44.6%	1248 54.3%	461.3 40.7%	647.1 57.1%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8	107 21.1%	394 78.0%	51.1 16.3%	258.1 82.4%
PA Cambria Munster	239 71.6%	89 26.6%	185.6 69.9%	70.9 26.7%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	1379 46.7%	1540 52.1%	570.0 43.2%	732.7 55.6%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	21 3.8%	535 95.9%	13.2 2.9%	434.4 96.5%

As shown in Table 4 above, the exit poll data when properly adjusted to account for party affiliation are within 2% of the official results (and thus the margins between the candidates are within 4%) in 6 of 10 polling places in California, and in 2 of 4 polling places in Pennsylvania. Three of these polling places were listed in Table 2 as having large disparities between the unadjusted exit poll data and the official results, the differentials in the margins being 8.6% in Long Beach, 13.9% in Glendale, and 15.8% in Eagle Rock.

But, as shown in Table 4, most of the disparity in all three cases is explained by undersampling of Republican voters, the disparities between the adjusted exit poll data and the official results being 0.5% in Long Beach, 4.0% in Glendale, and 2.8% in Eagle Rock).

But this still leaves us with 10 polling places (four in Los Angeles County, two in Pennsylvania, and four in New Hampshire) where the exit poll data, even when adjusted to account for party affiliation, differ from the official results by 3% or more, which amounts to a disparity of 6% or more in the margin of victory or defeat.

The highest of these disparities is found at Ward 5 in Manchester, New Hampshire, where Obama defeated McCain by 43.2% in the adjusted exit poll and by 27.6% in the official results. This 15.6% disparity is the amount over and above that which can be explained by undersampling of Republican voters.

For Ohio, for the precincts existent at the time the exit polls were conducted, we do not know how many from each party actually voted, but we do know the number of total registered voters from each party in these precincts. The comparison with the party affiliation of the exit poll responders is shown below.

TABLE 5: PARTY AFFILIATION OF REGISTERED VOTERS AND EXIT POLL RESPONDERS

Total Registered Voters	Rep.	Dem.	Ind.

OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	137 7.0%	934 47.8%	882 45.2%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	462 19.0%	1013 41.7%	954 39.3%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	488 27.1%	624 34.6%	689 38.3%

Exit Poll Responders	Rep.	Dem.	Ind.

OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	91 15.8%	317 55.0%	168 29.2%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	186 32.1%	261 45.1%	132 22.8%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	190 39.4%	196 40.7%	96 19.9%

One reason why these numbers do not come close to matching is that in Ohio, many voters who consider themselves Republican or Democratic actually register as Independent because this allows them to vote in the primary election of either party. Therefore the data would not be sufficiently comparable to allow any exit poll to be adjusted according to party affiliation even if we did know the party registrations of those who actually voted at the polls. But the data shown in Table 5 do indicate that we almost certainly did not undersample Republicans.

For New Mexico also, we know the number of total registered voters from each party in the precincts at which the exit polls were conducted, but do not know how many from each party actually voted. The comparison with the party affiliation of the exit poll responders is shown below. The pattern is similar to Ohio, with a greater percentage of exit poll responders than of total registered voters identifying their political party. The data indicate that we did not undersample Republicans or Democrats. If anything, we undersampled Independents.

TABLE 6: PARTY AFFILIATION OF REGISTERED VOTERS AND EXIT POLL RESPONDERS

Total Registered Voters	Rep.	Dem.	Other / None

NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	79 13.6%	365 63.0%	135 23.3%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	141 7.1%	1384 69.9%	456 23.0%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	43 5.6%	578 74.8%	152 19.7%

Exit Poll Responders	Rep.	Dem.	Other / None

NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	25 16.9%	101 68.2%	22 14.9%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	37 11.0%	253 75.5%	45 13.4%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	13 5.6%	196 84.1%	24 10.3%

CONGRESSIONAL RACES

All the questionnaires handed to the voters at all polling places asked how they voted in their Congressional election. This was done not only to verify (or question) the official results for Congress, but also as a comparison, to provide a check on the accuracy of the official results for President.

In 6 of the 28 polling places included in this paper, all in Los Angeles County, California, the incumbent ran unopposed for reelection to Congress, so those races are not listed here.

The other 22 polling places had contested Congressional elections, generally with Republican and Democratic candidates. At three polling places there was no Republican candidate; Green or Independent candidates were the opposition. These are noted at the bottom of Table 7, which compares the unadjusted exit poll data with the official results for the Congressional races.

As seen in Table 7, the Democratic candidate for Congress ran more strongly in the unadjusted exit poll than in the official results at 27 of 28 polling places. The lone exception was Munster Township in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, where the same pattern was seen in the presidential contest. At seven other polling places (three in Los Angeles County, one in New Mexico, one in Ohio, and two more in Pennsylvania), the difference between the unadjusted exit poll data and the official results was 2.1% or less.

TABLE 7: COMPARISON OF UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL DATA

AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR CONGRESSIONAL RACES

	Official Results U.S. Congress		Exit Poll U.S. Congress
	Republican *	Democratic	Republican *	Democratic

CA LA Long Beach 3850101A *	104 19.2%	439 80.8%	55 17.7%	255 82.3%
CA LA Glendale 2550120A 120B 122A	295 20.1%	1079 73.5%	74 13.9%	435 81.5%
CA LA Locke 9001145A 9002566A *	93 10.7%	775 89.3%	59 8.9%	602 91.1%
CA LA Lynwood 3990015A 16A 18A 19A	256 10.2%	2264 89.8%	103 8.1%	1170 91.9%
CA Alameda 280300 280700	128 25.0%	355 69.5%	56 19.2%	225 77.1%
MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	440 45.4%	466 48.1%	143 40.6%	191 54.3%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	745 40.6%	993 54.1%	186 28.3%	437 66.5%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	996 34.5%	1809 62.7%	432 29.3%	972 65.9%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	925 34.9%	1632 61.6%	294 27.0%	745 68.3%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	2239 45.3%	2580 52.2%	667 39.7%	943 56.1%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	931 42.8%	1203 55.3%	371 35.5%	651 62.2%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	20 10.5%	128 67.4%	10 7.5%	99 74.4%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	50 11.7%	308 72.1%	33 10.4%	251 78.9%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	8 2.7%	267 88.7%	4 1.9%	195 90.3%
OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	345 30.6%	777 69.0%	123 28.0%	304 69.1%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	1025 60.9%	622 36.9%	300 56.1%	224 41.9%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	719 59.0%	477 39.1%	249 54.1%	196 42.6%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8 *	54 11.7%	403 87.2%	27 9.5%	253 89.0%
PA Cambria Munster	193 58.3%	138 41.7%	155 59.6%	105 40.4%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	1616 55.6%	1229 42.3%	577 45.0%	684 53.3%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	44 8.8%	457 91.2%	31 8.1%	351 91.6%
TX Harris Houston 34	386 21.8%	1345 75.8%	72 15.7%	380 82.8%

* At three of the polling places listed above there was no Republican candidate for Congress. Instead, vote totals for the Independent candidate are listed at Locke and Long Beach, and for the Green Party candidate at Pittsburgh. In Santa Fe and Taos, New Mexico, the Green Party candidate ran second in a three-way race, besting the Republican candidate.

Bear in mind, however, that a difference of 2% in the columns of both candidates affects the margin, or “point spread,” by 4%. Third-party candidates can also affect the margin between the top two candidates.

It is more precise, therefore, to compare the disparities between the margins in the exit poll with the margins in the official results. The difference between them is sometimes referred to as “within precinct disparity,” although the term is not precise because some of our polling places had multiple precincts.

The disparities between the margins, or “point spreads,” in the unadjusted exit poll data and the official results for the presidential and Congressional races, culled from Table 1 and Table 7, are compared in Table 8 below.

TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF MARGINS OF VICTORY FOR PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

	Official Results		Exit Poll		Disparity
	President	Congress	President	Congress	President	Congress

CA LA Long Beach 101A	57.5%	61.6%	66.1%	64.6%	8.6%	3.0%
CA LA Glendale 120A 120B 122A	50.1%	53.4%	64.0%	67.6%	13.9%	14.2%
CA LA Locke 1145A 2566A	90.2%	78.6%	92.8%	82.2%	2.6%	3.6%
CA LA Lynwood 15A 16A 18A 19A	80.1%	79.6%	84.0%	83.8%	3.9%	4.2%
CA Alameda 280300 280700	61.5%	44.5%	73.1%	57.9%	11.6%	13.4%
MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	11.2%	2.7%	30.9%	13.7%	19.7%	11.0%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	19.1%	13.5%	43.5%	38.2%	24.4%	24.7%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	32.5%	28.2%	45.9%	36.6%	13.4%	8.4%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	27.6%	26.7%	47.8%	41.3%	20.2%	14.6%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	4.6%	6.9%	15.3%	16.4%	10.7%	9.5%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	9.7%	12.5%	24.4%	26.7%	14.7%	14.2%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	69.8%	56.9%	70.6%	66.9%	0.8%	10.0%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	55.7%	60.4%	66.1%	68.5%	10.4%	7.9%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	91.4%	86.0%	93.2%	88.4%	1.8%	2.4%
OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	18.1%	38.4%	18.0%	41.1%	-0.1%	2.7%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	-16.9%	-24.0%	-9.2%	-14.2%	7.7%	9.8%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	-8.3%	-19.9%	4.9%	-11.5%	13.2%	8.4%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8	56.9%	75.5%	69.9%	79.5%	13.0%	4.0%
PA Cambria Munster	-45.0%	-16.6%	-46.0%	-19.2%	-1.0%	-2.6%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	5.4%	-13.3%	24.7%	8.3%	19.3%	21.6%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	92.1%	82.4%	96.0%	83.5%	3.9%	1.1%
TX Harris Houston 34	40.4%	54.0%	55.4%	67.1%	15.0%	13.1%

In this case it is perfectly appropriate to use unadjusted exit poll data, because we are comparing the same thing, apples to apples, for both the presidential and Congressional races. These are the same voters, on the same day, at the same polling places. Thus the comparison is valid even for states where it is not possible to adjust the exit poll data to account for party affiliation.

At any single polling place, the unadjusted exit poll data should differ from the official results by about the same amount in all contested partisan races. In 15 of 22 polling places we find that this is true, as shown in Table 8 above. But at 6 of 22 polling places (one in California, one in Michigan, two in New Hampshire, one in Ohio, and one in Pennsylvania) the disparity in the margin for President exceeds the disparity in the margin for Congress by 4.0% or more. The differentials are as high as 9.0% at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and 8.7% at West Bloomfield, Michigan. At one polling place the reverse is true. At Rio En Medio in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, the disparity in the margin for Congress exceeds the disparity in the margin for President by 9.2.

As with the presidential election, the simplest analysis is to determine, by subtraction, what the vote count must have been among those who declined to participate in the exit poll, assuming that the official results are true and correct.

The comparison is shown in Table 9 below. At 21 of 22 polling places, the Democratic candidate runs more strongly in the exit polls than in the official results. The disparities between their percentage among exit poll responders and their presumed percentage among non-responders average 10.2%, ranging as high as 26.5% and 26.6% at Rio En Medio and Alameda, Santa Fe County, New Mexico. Again, these disparities could be due to an undersampling of Republican voters.

TABLE 9: VOTE COUNT AMONG NON-RESPONDERS, ASSUMING

OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR CONGRESSIONAL RACES ARE TRUE AND CORRECT

	Exit Poll Responders		Non-Responders
	Republican *	Democratic	Republican *	Democratic

CA LA Long Beach 101A *	55 17.7%	255 82.3%	49 21.0%	184 79.0%
CA LA Glendale 120A 120B 122A	74 13.9%	435 81.5%	221 23.7%	644 68.9%
CA LA Locke 1145A 2566A *	59 8.9%	602 91.1%	34 16.4%	173 83.6%
CA LA Lynwood 15A 16A 18A 19A	103 8.1%	1170 91.9%	153 12.3%	1094 87.7%
CA Alameda 280300 280700	56 19.2%	225 77.1%	72 32.9%	130 59.4%
MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	143 40.6%	191 54.3%	297 51.3%	275 47.5%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	186 28.3%	437 66.5%	559 50.1%	556 49.9%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	432 29.3%	972 65.9%	564 40.0%	837 59.4%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	294 27.0%	745 68.3%	631 40.4%	887 56.8%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	667 39.7%	943 56.1%	1572 48.1%	1637 50.1%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	371 35.5%	651 62.2%	560 49.6%	552 48.9%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	10 7.5%	99 77.4%	10 17.5%	29 50.9%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	33 10.4%	251 78.9%	17 15.6%	57 52.3%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	4 1.9%	195 90.3%	4 4.7%	72 84.7%
OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	123 28.0%	304 69.1%	222 31.9%	473 68.1%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	300 56.1%	224 41.9%	725 63.1%	398 34.6%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	249 54.1%	196 42.6%	470 61.9%	281 37.0%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8 *	27 9.5%	253 89.0%	27 15.2%	150 84.3%
PA Cambria Munster	155 59.6%	105 40.4%	38 53.5%	33 46.5%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	577 45.0%	684 53.3%	1039 64.1%	545 33.6%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	31 8.1%	351 91.6%	13 10.9%	106 89.1%
TX Harris Houston 34	72 15.7%	380 82.3%	314 23.9%	965 73.4%

*See footnote for Table 7.

For 12 of the 22 polling places with contested Congressional elections (in Los Angeles County, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania), we have the data necessary to adjust the exit poll data to account for party affiliation. The calculations are set forth in full detail in the appendix. The adjusted data are compared to the official results in Table 10 below.

At 6 of 12 polling places, the disparity between the margins in the adjusted exit poll data and the official results is 3.2% or less. But at the other six polling places (one in California, one in Pennsylvania, and all four in New Hampshire), the disparity is more than 4%, ranging as high as 10.4% at Ward 5 in Manchester, New Hampshire. Again, this 10.4% disparity is the amount over and above that which can be explained by undersampling of Republican voters.

TABLE 10: COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL RESULTS AND EXIT POLL DATA

ADJUSTED FOR PARTY AFFILIATION, CONGRESSIONAL RACES

	Official Results U.S. Congress		Adjusted Exit Poll Data
	Republican *	Democratic	Republican *	Democratic

CA LA Long Beach 3850101A *	104 19.2%	439 80.8%	63.5 20.5%	246.2 79.5%
CA LA Glendale 2550120A 120B 122A	295 20.1%	1079 73.5%	95.2 18.0%	407.5 77.0%
CA LA Locke 9001145A 9002566A *	93 10.7%	775 89.3%	63.5 9.6%	598.6 90.4%
CA LA Lynwood 3990015A 16A 18A 19A	256 10.2%	2264 89.8%	126.7 9.9%	1154.7 90.1%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	996 34.5%	1809 62.7%	463.9 31.4%	943.7 63.8%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	925 34.9%	1632 61.6%	317.8 29.1%	722.1 66.2%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	2239 45.3%	2580 52.2%	704.8 41.9%	906.8 53.9%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	931 42.8%	1203 55.3%	408.7 39.2%	610.7 58.6%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8 *	54 11.7%	403 87.2%	27.7 9.8%	250.8 88.5%
PA Cambria Munster	193 58.3%	138 41.7%	153.9 57.2%	107.2 39.9%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	1616 55.6%	1229 42.3%	660.4 51.4%	603.1 47.0%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	44 8.8%	457 91.2%	36.4 9.3%	354.6 90.5%

*See footnote for Table 7.

UNITED STATES SENATE RACES

In four of the states where our exit polls were conducted (Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Texas) there were contests for the United States Senate. A comparison of the official results with the unadjusted exit poll data is shown in Table 11 below. As in the presidential election, the Democratic candidates carried all ten polling places. However, at 9 of 10 polling places the Republican candidate fares better in the official results than in the exit poll. The lone exception is at Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, where Tom Udall received 95.2% in the exit poll and 96.0% in the official results.

TABLE 11: COMPARISON OF UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL DATA

AND OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR UNITED STATES SENATE RACES

	Official Results U.S. Senate		Exit Poll U.S. Senate
	Republican	Democratic	Republican	Democratic

MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	338 35.0%	573 59.4%	107 28.9%	244 65.9%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	629 34.0%	1152 62.2%	152 23.3%	468 71.7%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	1078 36.3%	1794 60.4%	484 31.7%	975 63.8%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	993 36.1%	1650 60.0%	315 27.7%	762 67.1%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	2337 45.2%	2639 51.0%	722 40.4%	983 55.0%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	1010 45.2%	1148 51.4%	401 36.6%	650 59.4%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	28 14.7%	163 85.3%	19 13.1%	125 86.2%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	76 17.6%	357 82.4%	44 13.5%	279 85.8%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	12 4.0%	290 96.0%	10 4.4%	217 95.2%
TX Harris Houston 34	426 23.9%	1296 72.8%	94 20.3%	360 77.9%

In 8 of the 10 polling places shown above, the disparity between the margins of victory in the exit poll and the official results is greater for the presidential election (ref. Table 1) than for the Senate race (ref. Table 11). The comparison is shown in Table 12 below.

In New Mexico, at Taos Pueblo and at Rio En Medio, both disparities are small, and at Alameda in Santa Fe, it is possible that the disparities are due to questionnaires being lost or mixed up among precincts, as happened elsewhere in Santa Fe County.

But in Michigan and Texas (as in New Hampshire) both disparities are large, and the difference between them is 7.1% at West Bloomfield in Michigan, suggesting that even if the exit poll data could be properly adjusted to account for party affiliation, a significant disparity might still exist for the presidential election.

TABLE 12: COMPARISON OF MARGINS OF VICTORY FOR PRESIDENT AND SENATE

	Official Results		Exit Poll		Disparity
	President	Senate	President	Senate	President	Senate

MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	11.2%	24.4%	30.9%	37.0%	19.7%	12.6%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	19.1%	28.2%	43.5%	48.4%	24.4%	20.2%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	32.5%	24.1%	45.9%	32.1%	13.4%	8.0%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	27.6%	23.9%	47.8%	39.4%	20.2%	15.5%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	4.6%	5.8%	15.3%	14.6%	10.7%	8.8%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	9.7%	6.2%	24.4%	22.8%	14.7%	16.6%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	69.8%	70.6%	70.6%	73.1%	0.8%	2.5%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	55.7%	64.8%	66.1%	72.3%	10.4%	7.7%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	91.4%	92.0%	93.2%	90.8%	1.8%	- 1.2%
TX Harris Houston 34	40.4%	48.9%	55.4%	57.6%	15.0%	12.2%

As with the presidential and Congressional elections, the simplest analysis is to determine, by subtraction, what the vote count must have been among those who declined to participate in the exit poll, assuming that the official results are true and correct. The comparison is shown in Table 13 below. At 9 of 10 polling places, the Democratic candidate runs more strongly in the exit polls than in the official results. The disparities between their percentage among exit poll responders and their presumed percentage among non-responders average 10.4%, ranging as high as 15.7% at Wilton, New Hampshire. Again, these disparities could be due to an undersampling of Republican voters.

TABLE 13: VOTE COUNT AMONG NON-RESPONDERS, ASSUMING

OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR SENATE RACES ARE TRUE AND CORRECT

	Exit Poll Responders		Non-Responders
	Republican	Democratic	Republican	Democratic

MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	107 28.9%	244 65.9%	231 38.8%	329 55.3%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	152 23.3%	468 71.7%	477 39.8%	684 57.1%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	484 31.7%	975 63.8%	594 41.3%	819 56.9%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	315 27.7%	762 67.1%	678 42.1%	888 55.1%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	722 40.4%	983 55.0%	1615 47.7%	1656 48.9%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	401 36.6%	650 59.4%	609 53.4%	498 43.7%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	19 13.1%	125 86.2%	9 19.1%	38 80.9%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	44 13.5%	279 85.8%	32 29.1%	78 70.9%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	10 4.4%	217 95.2%	2 2.7%	73 97.3%
TX Harris Houston 34	94 20.3%	360 77.9%	332 25.2%	936 71.0%

Unfortunately, we lack the data for party affiliation of voters at the polls in Michigan, New Mexico and Texas. New Hampshire is the only state with a United States Senate contest where we are able to adjust the exit poll data to account for party affiliation. The calculations are set forth in full detail in the appendix. The adjusted data are compared to the official results in Table 14 below.

At all four polling places in New Hampshire, undersampling of Republican voters in the exit polls accounts for some, but not all, of the disparities shown in Table 12 above. The disparity is reduced from 8.0% to 4.0% at Manchester 3, from 15.5% to 11.0% at Manchester 5, from 8.8% to 4.2% at Nashua 5, and from 16.6% to 8.6% at Wilton. Again, these disparities are the amounts over and above that which can be explained by undersampling of Republican voters.

TABLE 14: COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL RESULTS AND EXIT POLL DATA

ADJUSTED FOR PARTY AFFILIATION, UNITED STATES SENATE RACES

	Official Results U.S. Senate		Exit Poll U.S. Senate
	Republican	Democratic	Republican	Democratic

NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	1078 36.3%	1794 60.4%	516.5 33.7%	946.2 61.8%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	993 36.1%	1650 60.0%	340.4 30.0%	737.2 64.9%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	2337 45.2%	2639 51.0%	765.4 42.7%	943.6 52.7%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	1010 45.2%	1148 51.4%	444.7 40.6%	606.3 55.4%

SUMMARY and REVIEW

For 28 polling places in 7 states, exit poll data have been compared to official results for the presidential election and for all contested Senate and Congressional races. For 18 of the 28 polling places, exit poll data have been adjusted to account for party affiliation. For the other 10 polling places, we lack the data to make such adjustments possible.

In 9 of the 28 polling places, no significant disparities were found between the official results and the exit poll data, whether adjusted or unadjusted, for any of the 17 races analyzed. This vouches for the accuracy of our exit polls, and there is no need to study these polling places further. In the other 19 polling places, significant disparities exist between the official results and the exit poll data in at least one election contest, and sometimes two or three.

At 5 of 10 polling places in Los Angeles County, no significant disparities were found in any of the 8 races analyzed. All were less than 3%, ranging from 0.4% to 2.8%. At the other 5 polling places in Los Angeles County, adjusted exit poll data showed disparities ranging from 4.0% to 10.5% in the presidential election. There was no Senate contest in California, and in 4 of these polling places there was no contested Congressional race. At Glendale, where there was a contested Congressional race, the disparity was 5.6%. (See Table 15) Data from all of these polling places have been exhaustively analyzed in the accompanying paper concerning Propositions 4 and 8 in Los Angeles County.

At 2 of 4 polling places in Pennsylvania, where there also was no Senate contest, no significant disparities were found in the presidential or Congressional elections. The disparities ranged from 0.7% to 1.8%. At the other 2 polling places in Pennsylvania, adjusted exit poll data showed disparities in both the presidential and Congressional contests. At Harris Township in Centre County, the disparities were 7.0% and 8.9%, respectively. At Pittsburgh, the disparity in the presidential election was 9.2% and the disparity in the Congressional race was 3.2%. Both polling places will be investigated further. (See Table 15)

At all 4 polling places in New Hampshire, where there was a Senate contest and two contested Congressional races, disparities were found in all 12 cases, and most of them were significant. The disparities, based on exit poll data adjusted to account for party affiliation, ranged from 4.2% to 10.4% in the Congressional races, from 4.0% to 11.0% in the Senate race, and from 6.0% to 15.6% in the presidential election (Table 15). All four of these polling places warrant further investigation.

The disparities found among exit poll data adjusted to account for party affiliation are summarized in Table 15 below, with disparities of less than 3% color coded in blue, as are the names of the 7 polling places where no significant disparities were found.

TABLE 15: DISPARITIES BETWEEN MARGINS OF VICTORY

IN OFFICIAL RESULTS AND EXIT POLL DATA, ADJUSTED

	President	Senate	Congress

CA LA Taft 9001037A	8.8%
CA LA Long Beach 3850101A	0.5%		2.6%
CA LA Berendo 9005399A	0.4%
CA LA Santa Monica 6250005A	6.1%
CA LA Topanga 710003A 6A	10.5%
CA LA Lockhurst 9006489A 90A	8.7%
CA LA Glendale 2550120A 120B 122A	4.0%		5.6%
CA LA Locke 9001145A 9002566A	0.6%		2.2%
CA LA Eagle Rock 9006334A 6335A	2.8%
CA LA Lynwood 3990015A 16A 18A 19A	0.9%		0.6%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 3	8.8%	3.6%	4.2%
NH Hillsborough Manchester 5	15.6%	11.0%	10.4%
NH Hillsborough Nashua 5	6.0%	4.2%	5.1%
NH Hillsborough Wilton	6.7%	8.6%	6.9%
PA Allegheny Pittsburgh W 14 D 8	9.2%		3.2%
PA Cambria Munster	1.8%		0.7%
PA Centre Harris Twp 56 57	7.0%		8.9%
PA Philadelphia D 30 W 5 10	1.5%		1.2%

In 4 states we lack the data to adjust for party affiliation. Of these, three (Michigan, New Mexico and Texas) had Senate contests, and one (Ohio) did not. All 9 polling places in these states had contested Congressional races.

We also lack the party affiliation data for Alameda, California, where there was a contested Congressional race but no Senate contest.

At Taos Pueblo, New Mexico and at Beachwood, Ohio, no significant disparities were found in any of the 5 races analyzed. Even with unadjusted exit poll data, the disparities range from 0.1% to 2.7%. At Rio En Medio in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, the disparities in the presidential and Senate races were only 0.8% and 2.5%, but the disparity in the Congressional contest was 10.0%, a significant differential which warrants special analysis. (See Table 16)

At the other 7 polling places, significant disparities were found between the official results and the unadjusted exit poll data in all 18 races analyzed. The disparities range from 7.5% to 24.7%. At West Bloomfield, Michigan, at Rocky River, Ohio, and at Houston, Texas, there were significant differentials among the disparities, always highest in the presidential election (Table 16).

All of these polling places warrant further investigation, a task complicated by the fact that we cannot know for certain to what extent these disparities are due to undersampling of Republican voters. But there are other analytical techniques available even when there are no exit poll data whatsoever, and these will be utilized in the second part of this paper.

The disparities found among the unadjusted exit poll data are summarized in Table 16 below, with disparities of less than 3% color coded in blue, as are the names of the 2 polling places where no significant disparities were found.

TABLE 16: DISPARITIES BETWEEN MARGINS OF VICTORY

IN OFFICIAL RESULTS AND EXIT POLL DATA, UNADJUSTED

	President	Senate	Congress

CA Alameda 280300 280700	11.6%		13.4%
MI Oakland West Bloomfield 2	19.7%	12.6%	11.0%
MI Washtenaw Chelsea 1 2	24.4%	20.2%	24.7%
NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	0.8%	2.5%	10.0%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	10.4%	7.5%	8.1%
NM Taos Pueblo 13	1.8%	1.2%	2.4%
OH Cuyahoga Beachwood A B N	0.1%		2.7%
OH Cuyahoga Independence A C F	7.7%		9.8%
OH Cuyahoga Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	13.2%		8.4%
TX Harris Houston 34	15.0%	8.7%	13.1%

COMPARISON WITH PAST ELECTION RESULTS IN MICHIGAN

In Michigan, where we have no data on the party affiliation of the exit poll responders, the credibility of the official 2008 election results is established by comparison with previous elections, as shown in Table 17 below. Cases where one of the candidates ran for the same office in consecutive elections are shown in blue. In one case there was a rematch between the same two candidates.

At West Bloomfield, where Barack Obama received 64.6% in the exit poll and only 54.7% in the official results (ref. Table 1), this was still 5.0% better than John Kerry, who received only 49.7% of the vote in the 2004 presidential election.

Similarly, in the Senate race, Carl Levin received 65.9% in the exit poll and only 59.4% in the official results (ref. Table 11), but this was very much in line with the 59.1% of the vote that Levin received in the 2002 Senate race.

In the Congressional election, the Democratic candidate received 54.3% in the exit poll and only 48.1% in the official results (ref. Table 7), but again, this was very much in line with the 48.7% of the vote that the Democratic candidate received in the 2006 Congressional election. I must conclude that the raw exit poll data are not reflective of the electorate, and that the disparities shown in Table 16 above are due primarily to an undersampling of Republican voters, which illustrates the importance of asking exit poll responders to indicate their party affiliation.

At Chelsea City, where Barack Obama received 70.5% in the exit poll and only 58.7% in the official results (ref. Table 1), this was still 4.5% better than John Kerry, who received only 54.2% of the vote in the 2004 presidential election.

In the Congressional election, the Democratic candidate received 66.5% in the exit poll and only 54.1% in the official results (ref. Table 7), but this was only 2.1% less than the Democratic candidate received in 2006 in her second try for the office, and the Republican candidate received almost exactly the same percentage as in 2006.

In the Senate race, Carl Levin received 71.7% in the exit poll and only 62.2% in the official results (ref. Table 11). Chelsea was not incorporated as a city until after the 2002 election, so no direct comparison can be made, but in 2002 most of what is now Chelsea City voted in Sylvan Township, where Carl Levin defeated the Republican candidate by 1114 (59.3%) to 719 (38.3%), which is 2.9% less than Levin received in Chelsea City in 2008. As in West Bloomfield, I must conclude that the raw exit poll data are not reflective of the electorate, and that Republican voters were undersampled in the exit poll.

TABLE 17: COMPARISON OF 2008 OFFICIAL RESULTS WITH PAST ELECTIONS, MICHIGAN

	President		U. S. Senate		U. S. Congress
MI West Bloomfield 2	Republican	Democrat	Republican	Democrat	Republican	Democrat

2008	433 43.5%	545 54.7%	338 35.0%	573 59.4%	440 45.4%	466 48.1%
2006					710 48.8%	709 48.7%
2004	654 49.5%	656 49.7%			747 59.6%	483 38.5%
2002			379 38.8%	577 59.1%	550 56.6%	399 41.0%

	President		U. S. Senate		U. S. Congress
MI Chelsea 1 2	Republican	Democrat	Republican	Democrat	Republican	Democrat

2008	752 39.6%	1115 58.7%	629 34.0%	1152 62.2%	745 40.6%	993 54.1%
2006					885 40.5%	1227 56.2%
2004	846 44.4%	1032 54.2%			943 53.1%	757 42.6%
2002			N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.

COMPARISON WITH PAST ELECTION RESULTS IN OHIO

In Ohio, where we have party affiliation data for exit poll responders and for total registered voters, but not for voters at the polls, the credibility of the official 2008 election results is established by our highly accurate exit poll at Beachwood, and by comparison with previous elections at Independence and Rocky River, as shown in Table 18 below. Absentee ballots are included for 2008 and 2006 only. Prior to this, absentee ballots in Cuyahoga County were counted on an at-large countywide basis, so the results are not available at the precinct level.

At Independence, Barack Obama received 44.3% in the exit poll and only 41.2% in the official results (40.8% excluding absentee ballots) (ref. Table 1). In 2004, John Kerry received in the official results the exact same percentage that Obama received in the exit poll. However, at Rocky River, where Obama received 51.7% in the exit poll and only 45.2% in the official results (45.1% excluding absentee ballots) (ref. Table 1), Kerry in 2004 received only 39.2% of the vote, so the exit poll numbers do seem less credible than the official results.

The Congressional race provides a more interesting comparison. At Independence, Dennis Kucinich received 41.9% in the exit poll and only 37.1% in the official results (36.9% excluding absentee ballots) (ref. Table 7). But this was far below his official percentage in previous elections (69.4% in 2002, 53.5% in 2004, and 59.9% in 2006). At Rocky River, Kucinich received 42.6% in the exit poll and only 39.2% in the official results (39.1% excluding absentee ballots) (ref. Table 7). This was far below his official percentage in two of three previous elections (61.7% in 2002, 40.5% in 2004, and 49.7% in 2006). Our exit polls clearly picked up on this trend, even if they did not capture its full extent.

TABLE 18: COMPARISON OF 2008 OFFICIAL RESULTS WITH PAST ELECTIONS, OHIO

	President		U. S. Congress
OH Independence A C F	Republican	Democrat	Republican	Democrat

2008	1044 57.2%	752 41.2%	1060 60.7%	648 37.1%
2006			556 40.1%	829 59.9%
2004	918 55.6%	732 44.3%	600 39.4%	814 53.5%
2002			343 29.0%	820 69.4%

	President		U. S. Congress
OH Rocky River 1D 1E 1G	Republican		Democrat
			Republican	Democrat
2008	705 53.4%	597 45.2%
2006			746 58.7%	498 39.2%
2004	643 60.8%	415 39.2%	512 50.3%	505 49.7%
2002			583 56.2%	420 40.5%

If our exit polls in Independence and Rocky River undersampled Republican voters, this could account for the disparity between the raw data and the official results (9.8% at Independence, 8.4% at Rocky River) (ref. Tables 8 and 16). Jim Trakas, the Republican candidate, received overwhelming support among exit poll responders who identified themselves as Republicans, winning 84.6% at Independence and 88.1% at Rocky River, as shown in Table 19 below.

But Trakas also had strong support among exit poll responders who identified themselves as Independents (61.1% at Independence, 47.2% at Rocky River), and had substantial support among those who identified themselves as Democrats (33.6% at Independence, 23.7% at Rocky River). We cannot be certain how much of the disparity between the raw data and the official results is due to non-representative samples with respect to party affiliation. But the raw data clearly show the erosion of support for Kucinich.

TABLE 19: BREAKDOWN OF VOTERS BY PARTY AFFILIATION, OHIO

	Republican	Democratic	Independent
Independence A C F
Paul F. Conroy (L)	2 1.1%	5 2.0%	4 3.5%
Jim Trakas (R)	148 84.6%	83 33.6%	69 61.1%
Dennis J. Kucinich (D)	25 14.3%	159 64.4%	40 35.4%
None	11	14	19

Rocky River 1D 1E 1G
Paul F. Conroy (L)	3 1.6%	7 3.8%	5 5.6%
Jim Trakas (R)	163 88.1%	44 23.7%	42 47.2%
Dennis J. Kucinich (D)	19 10.3%	135 72.6%	42 47.2%
None	5	10	7

CONGRESSIONAL RACE IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO

In New Mexico, as in Ohio, we have party affiliation data for exit poll responders and for total registered voters, but not for voters at the polls. Thus we have only unadjusted exit poll data to work with. At Rio En Medio (Precinct 7) our exit poll precisely matched Barack Obama’s official percentage of 83.9% (ref. Table 1), and was within 0.9% of the Democratic candidate’s percentage in the Senate race (ref. Table 11). But for the three-way Congressional race, our exit poll differed from the official results by 7.0% for the Democratic candidate, 3.0% for the Republican candidate, and 4.1% for the Green Party candidate (see Table 20). At Alameda (Precincts 25 and 33), our exit poll overstated the margins of victory for Democratic candidates in all three contests – by 10.4% for Obama, 7.5% for Senator Tom Udall, and 8.1% for Congressman Ben Lujan. The comparisons for the three-way Congressional race, including the Green Party candidate Carol Miller, who actually ran second in many precincts, are shown below.

TABLE 20: UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL DATA AND OFFICIAL RESULTS, NEW MEXICO

	Official Results U. S. Congress			Exit Poll U. S. Congress
	Republican	Democratic	Green	Republican	Democratic	Green

NM Santa Fe 7 Rio En Medio	20 10.5%	128 67.4%	42 22.1%	10 7.5%	99 74.4%	24 18.0%
NM Santa Fe 25 33 Alameda	50 11.7%	308 72.1%	69 16.2%	33 10.4%	251 78.9%	34 10.7%

Interesting patterns emerge when considering how the exit poll non-responders must have voted if the official results are true and correct (see Table 21). It would appear that Republicans were undersampled at both polling places, with McCain receiving more than twice as high a percentage of the vote among non-responders as among responders.

At Rio En Medio, the number of Republican votes among the non-responders is almost equal for all three offices, as might be expected. But among the responders, such party discipline did not occur. The 19 McCain voters were evenly divided in the Congressional race. Of the 16 who made a choice, 7 voted Republican, 7 voted Democratic, and 2 voted Green.

At Alameda, the same pattern appears among the non-responders – no more than 42.5% (17 of 40) who voted for McCain voted Republican for Congress, while at least 57.5% (23 of 40) voted Democratic or Green. Our database of McCain voters at Alameda bears this out. Of the 49 who made a choice for Congress, only 29 (59%) voted Republican for Congress; 17 (35%) voted Democratic, and 3 (6%) voted Green. Altogether, then, our database shows that 5 (8%) of 65 McCain supporters voted for the Green Party candidate for Congress.

At that rate, one can only account for the official results at Alameda if, among the non-responders, 20 (50%) of 40 McCain supporters voted Democratic for Congress, and if 32 (49%) of 65 Obama supporters voted Green for Congress. This is where the analysis breaks down. Of the 267 Obama voters in our Alameda database, only 27 (10%) voted Green for Congress – a substantial number, but nowhere near 50%. And yet, if the official results are true and correct, the Green Party candidate must have received almost three times as high a percentage among non-responders (32.1%) as among responders (10.7%). It seems unlikely that Green voters would be reluctant to participate in an exit poll. Alternatively, our data set or the official results could have been corrupted.

TABLE 21: VOTE COUNT AMONG NON-RESPONDERS, ASSUMING

OFFICIAL RESULTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO

	Exit Poll Responders		Non-Responders
President	McCain	Obama	<