We have already
said that polling results are inexact. I must say, however, that the
method that Richard Hayes Phillips used for his analysis is very
thorough. If one really understands all the steps he took, it is very
hard to fault his methodology or his results.
Emily: In his analysis, he goes over the four reasons why the results of the poll might vary from the official results:
Emily: In his analysis, he goes over the four reasons why the results of the poll might vary from the official results:
- a basic flaw in the exit poll methodology;
- many voters lying on the questionnaire;
- a non-representative sample of voters responding; or
- the official results being erroneous or fraudulent
And
one by one, he shows why the first three can be ruled out, leaving only
the fourth: the official results being erroneous or fraudulent.
How is this poll different from the typical exit poll?
Sally: For one thing, a "typical" exit poll is designed to predict winners. The whole random sampling method is different. The typical poll needs to select representative polling sites that are representative of the population of a particular region. It doesn't need to sample too many voters because each response is then weighted according to what segment of the population that voter represents. The EVEP methodology is designed to sample as many voters as possible, and only to see if the official results and the polling results match for any given site. The purpose of it is not to predict winners but to evaluate the accuracy of the official vote count. That's what the study is designed to do.
Who was involved in the study and the analysis?
Sally: The EVEP methodology was formulated by Professor Steve Freeman of UPenn and founder of ElectionIntegrity.org; Dr. Ken Warren, President of The Warren Poll; and Dr. Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance (EDA). All three men played roles in the 2008 polling. I too was a co-founder of EDA; and I oversaw the operations in 8 states, including California. In LA County, all the polling was led by Judith Alter, of Protect California Ballots, and performed by more than 100 trained volunteers.
This was the sixth time Alter had led a polling project and many of her volunteers had also participated in previous polling. Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips, who had meticulously examined and analyzed more than 125,000 ballots from the 2004 election in Ohio, was the data analyst. Phillips also analyzed the data from the Presidential and Congressional races from all 8 states. That report can be found at the EDA website, www.electiondefensealliance.org.
What do you think needs to happen now?
Sally: Ideally, there are several things that should happen. First, this issue must get more attention so people realize that just because they vote on a paper ballot does not mean it is counted by at least two sets of eyes -- or any eyes at all -- or that it is counted accurately. People need to be made aware of the profound vulnerabilities of our electronic election equipment.
Emily:
The ballots should be impounded and some sites counted by hand.
However, now that the report has been leaked, it is possible that some
ballots have been tampered with. A huge amount of money was spent on
the Prop 8 campaign and a lot rides on the results. If the results are
fraudulent, somebody has a motive to change ballots now to match those
results. Therefore, before the ballots are hand-counted, it would be
necessary to do a thorough examination to be certain that the chain of
custody has been maintained intact.
The
GLBT community especially, in CA and elsewhere, should be made aware
that it is very possible that Californians did not really pass Prop 8.
If that is so, it profoundly changes the landscape.
Yes. That would be quite upsetting. So, what can people do who want to take action?
Emily: There are several crucial things people can do immediately. First of all, people can and must make sure everyone hears about this study and understands what it means. We can't rely on the corporate media to get our message out any more than we can rely on the corporations to run elections to count our votes!
So write emails, post to blogs, call your friends, stand with signs on street corners, write letters to the editor, post on Facebook: do all the things you do when you know something that other people need to know about. Second, tell the Secretary of State that she must immediately take two actions. The first is to conduct an investigation into the Prop 8 vote count, beginning with an investigation of the chain of custody of the ballots and other election materials.
The second thing she must do is take much more decisive action to return control of California elections to the voters. Our elections belong to us, not to the corporations. WE must count the votes. WE must watch every step of the election process. Secretary of State Bowen ran for office on a platform of election integrity. She has done some good things. She has not done enough. She's up for re-election this year, and it's time for us to say, "Show us the reforms!"
We've set up a website to make it easy for people to get this message to SoS Bowen, to read the report, to get background on the issue, and to stay informed. Soon we'll be adding an organizing tool for people to connect with each other to take further action. It's a brand new website, just launching now. Come check it out at www.wasprop8straight.org.
Sounds good!
Sally: Thank you, Joan, for taking this time with us.
Emily: Yes, we really appreciate the opportunity.
I want to emphasize that this is not just about same sex marriage. This is but one more reminder that we cannot trust our election results if our votes are counted in secret. Election integrity depends on the public being able to observe elections every step of the way.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
