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) may have been corrupted. The data were drawn from questionnaires filled out by 6326 voters at 10 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.
Is this bona fide, or is it evidence of a Bradley Effect for marriage equality? Read more here.
04 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Very interesting... If nothing else I see this as yet another confirmation that, as the HRC is rightly fond of saying, we are on the right side of history.
Well, I'm glad you mentioned the Bradley effect. The 2008 election was an unusual election, to say the least.
Since the results of the polling were "adjusted to match the gender, age, race, and party affiliation of the electorate," the polling results would be skewed if the voter turnout was significantly different in its gender, age, race and/or party affiliation make-up, in comparison with the general electorate. If ever there were an election night when that might have been the case, it would have been the 2008 election.
These kinds of polling results always become more skewed when voter turnout is heavier than usual.
As much as I'd like to believe that a majority of voters in California on Nov. 4, 2008 wanted to preserve same-sex marriage, I'm not sure this is definitive proof that they did...
Just curious...
Is anyone -- such as the governor -- with power to actually order a review of the memory cards and computer code (which could prove election fraud) taking this seriously?
I just read the entire report (well, skimmed a few sections, but read most of it). It's very interesting, and (re: J G-W's remarks) the authors appear to have done a quite thorough job of accounting for any potential anomalies in voter turnout.
I'm also interested to know whether anyone in a position to do anything would be inclined to take this seriously, and what steps would be taken if it was determined that the official results were indeed fraudulent?
I'd have to see evidence of voter fraud to be overly concerned about this. They researchers went into this looking for this result. I could see the Bradley effect affecting the surveys, especially among those who support abortion, but not gay marriage. And they don't say how the results were adjusted for gender, age, race etc, just that they were.
The Black vote which tends toward liberal ideals, came out in favor of traditional marriage.
I'd have to say it's the Bradley Effect... but thats because I know a lot of people who seem "liberal" and don't really like the idea of gay marriage.
Post a Comment