News: Election 2004: Even the Non-Partisan National Research Commission on Elections and Voting Cannot Conclusively State the Election Was Not Stolen

By ADVOCATE STAFF

While finding "no current evidence of irregularities of sufficient magnitude or scope to change the popular vote or Electoral College winner," the non-partisan National Research Commission on Elections and Voting, which released its interim report on December 22nd, 2004, nevertheless could make no "conclusive statement regarding the accuracy or fairness of specific [2004 election] results at this time." [Emphasis supplied].

The Advocate believes the above news bears repeating, as you won't hear it a single time -- let alone repeated -- from any mainstream media source, and the report itself makes great effort to bury this headline in its mountain of academic/statistical verbiage: the non-partisan National Research Commission on Elections and Voting has studied the 2004 election and cannot conclusively state that the results of the election are accurate. The Commission does little to hide the fact that blame for the lack of a conclusive determination as to the fairness of the presidential election lies squarely with all those who currently hold or control vital election data, but for whatever reason (partisan or otherwise) will not release it.

Specifically, the Commission's review of the 2004 presidential election found:

* "incomplete data" (Introduction);

* "insufficient transparency of the election administration process" (Introduction);

* "public doubts [about the election result]" (Introduction);

* "remaining uncertainties over allegations [of election fraud]" (Introduction);

* "serious inadequacies in our election administration and oversight system" (Introduction);

* "news organizations" as well as blogs leaked election-day exit poll results (pg. 2);

* "final popular vote tallies...differed markedly from...early poll results" (pg. 2);

* "[poll] disparities...were significantly larger than the standard 'margin of error' reported by exit polling organizations" (pg. 2);

* "disparities between exit poll results and final vote counts in the 2004 election were larger than those observed in other recent presidential elections" (pg. 2);

* "other forms of statistical analysis [besides exit polls]...will be pursued by researchers when the appropriate data on election returns become available" (pg. 5);

* "more definitive tests of current theories seeking to explain exit poll discrepancies will require full disclosure of both the raw data and the specific weightings and other refinements used to transform them over the course of Election Day" (pg. 5);

* "methods, data, and weighting procedures should be fully disclosed for all exit polls in accordance with accepted public opinion survey research practices, such as those endorsed by the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP)" (pg. 6);

* "timely disclosure of such information would allow public observers to ascertain the significance and limitations of purported findings" (pg. 6);

* "county-level data currently available to the public cannot support the claim that electronic voting machines systematically awarded excess votes to George W. Bush...[but] only complete ballot and precinct-level data on voting patterns associated with different machine types would allow for a conclusive test of possible machine biases" (pg. 12);

* "there was widespread variation in wait times across at least some precincts in the state [of Ohio]...at least a portion of these instances occurred in urban districts with high minority concentrations" (pg. 14);

* "if long lines were more common in certain types of districts, then it is possible that these obstacles had systematic effects on voting outcomes" (pg. 15);

* "given the anecdotal evidence that long lines were concentrated in urban areas, there is special cause for concern because the impacts of long lines would likely not be partisan- or race-neutral, as urban areas have greater numbers of Democrats and minorities than suburban, exurban, and rural areas" (pg. 15);

* "excessive wait times were, in fact, more common in Democratic-leaning urban districts than ex-urban Republican or rural districts...available data shows...[that] precinct-level support for Kerry was positively associated with wait time" (pg. 15);

* "a more definitive analysis [of the effect of machine availability on turnout] would first need to measure possible effects of other variables explaining turnout that are associated with machine availability in order to estimate the independent effect of machine ratios on turnout. At the time this report was completed, sufficient data to control for these other influences were not publicly available" (pg. 17);

* "[it is] implausible to argue that machine availability (and hence wait times) has no effect on turnout" (pg. 17);

* "long wait times in more Democratic districts suppressed turnout to some degree" (pg. 17);

* "the distribution of voting machines should be managed in a fashion that both keeps the average wait time as short as possible and insures that the maximum wait time is uniform across precincts" (pg. 17);

* "allegations concerning election process irregularities [in Ohio] have received considerable public attention" (pg. 18);

* "in 2000, the residual vote rate was almost twice as high in Ohio for Votomatic punch-cards than for other systems. These differences persist even when the average education level, a known predictor of residual vote rates, is controlled for" (pg. 23);

* "if machines with higher residual vote rates are more concentrated in certain types of precincts more than others, such differences could have systematic effects on election results. Although it is doubtful that differences in residual vote rates decided the winner of the presidential race in Ohio in 2004, scholars should undertake an analysis of the residual vote rates and voting equipment in Ohio precincts to encourage acceleration in the process of converting voting equipment to systems that have lower residual vote profiles" (pg. 25);

* "based on the data and evidence available...it is not possible to establish with certainty whether, and to what extent, provisional ballot administration irregularities may have affected the measured outcome of the popular vote in Ohio" (pg. 26);

* "using precinct-level data, researchers could analyze whether counties with more African Americans and/or Democratic voters saw higher numbers of provisional ballots utilized, controlling for other factors, such as mobility" (pg. 26);

* "continuing public allegations of irregularities in polling place conditions, voting machine distribution, vote counting, and provisional ballot administration in Ohio merit scrutiny of all available data and evidence" (Conclusion).

The Advocate notes that Warren Mitofsky, Edison International, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and the Fox News Channel have given a self-congratulatory middle finger to non-partisan academics such as those who comprise the National Research Commission on Elections and Voting; whereas the most crucial request of the Commission was "full disclosure of all methods, data, and weighting procedures" for the Mitofsky/Edison International/NEP exit polls, and disclosure of same in a "timely" fashion, all of the named parties have thus far refused to make their data public -- for what mysterious reason, the public does not yet know -- thus causing the Commission to reach no definitive conclusion as to the results of the 2004 election.

The Advocate notes, also, that any state-level data which has yet to be released to the Commission -- note the many times in the report where the phrase "based on the available data" appears -- is being held back by a Republican, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Those who assert there was election fraud in Ohio in 2004 have done absolutely nothing to withhold vital election data from non-partisan outfits such as the National Research Commission on Elections and Voting. Indeed, whenever and wherever data has been withheld from such analyses, it has been withheld by parties claiming there were no irregularities whatsoever in the 2004 election.

To those who would misquote or misstate the findings of the Commission, The Advocate points its readership to the following language from the conclusion [emphasis supplied]:

"While these authors do not believe that the alleged irregularities in Ohio, if confirmed to be true, are of a sufficient magnitude to have changed the winner of the popular vote in that state, we believe that a systematic, nonpartisan review of all available evidence is necessary to confirm that the results of the election are legitimate...[a]lthough the authors of this report do not believe at this time that the current election was 'stolen,' we nonetheless acknowledge that nonpartisan observers will never know with full confidence whether all aspects of the most recent election were administered according to applicable laws...because the necessary data are either not collected or not publicly available..."

See Related Stories:

("Interim Report on Alleged Irregularities in the United States Presidential Election of November 2nd, 2004," The National Commission on Elections and Voting, Professors Henry E. Brady, Guy Uriel-Charles, Benjamin Highton, Martha Kropf, Walter R. Mebane Jr., Michael Traugott, et. al., 12/22/04)

Report