http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel.htm

2008 Election Model
A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

TruthIsAll

Updated: Aug 29

Obama is getting an expected convention bounce in the national polls.

What is his projected Electoral Vote, assuming the election is held today?

Is it 282, based on the latest unadjusted state polls?
Is it 301, based on the projected state 2-party vote using the latest polls (assuming an even split of undecided voters)?
Is it 331, based on the projected state vote win probabilities (assuming 60% of undecided voters (UVA) break to Obama)?
Is it 341, based on the projected state 2-party vote using the latest polls (assuming 60% UVA for Obama)?

The Election Model Monte Carlo 5000 election trial EV simulation has him winning by 331-207.

The expected electoral vote can be calculated directly by a formula. But only a simulation can calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote.
Obama’s expected EV in a given state is the EV times his win probability. Therefore, his Total Expected EV is given by the summation formula:

EV = sum [ (P (i) * EV (i) ], for I =1 ,51 states. P (i) is the probability of winning state (i) with EV (i) electoral votes.

For example, Obama is projected to win Florida’s 27 EV with 50.4% of the 2-party vote (57.8% win probability). His expected EV is 15.6 (0.578 * 27EV).
The state poll/projection table (below) includes the expected EV.

Obama leads the aggregate State projection model by 51.9-48.1% and the National model by 52.8-47.2%. He has a bigger lead than the near “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media. That’s because they want a close race and don’t adjust polls for undecided and newly registered voters.

Of the latest 15 national polls, 11 are Registered Voter (RV) and 4 are LV. The RVs include newly registered young Democrats who are not included in the LV polls. Perhaps that’s why Obama leads by 4.6% in the RV polls but only 1.75% in the LVs. In 2004, Kerry did better in RVs than in LVs.

The Election Model’s base case scenario assumption is that Obama will capture 60% of the undecided vote. He’s considered to be the challenger since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 75-90% of the undecided vote. In 2004, final state and national polls had the race nearly tied at 47 but Kerry had at least 70% of the undecided vote (Gallup allocated 88% to him).

But there’s another factor to consider - Election Fraud. The media avoids McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms while he supports the most unpopular president in history. In a true democracy, this election would be a slam dunk.

NOT ONE ELECTION WEBSITE, POLLSTER OR MEDIA PUNDIT EVER MENTIONS THE FRAUD FACTOR.

The Election Model accounts for the distinct probability that the election will be fraudulent and adjusts the vote shares accordingly. This analysis will be provided right up to the election. To show the effects of fraud, the summary table displays Obama’s electoral and popular vote assuming 3% of total votes cast are uncounted (Obama has 75%) and 4% of Obama’s votes are switched to McCain. After adjusting for these factors, Obama has 251 electoral votes and a 49.1% vote share. Of course, for higher switched vote and uncounted vote rates, he would lose by larger margins. Two graphs display the effects of a combination range of uncounted and switch vote scenarios on the EV and popular vote (see the links below).

The Democratic True vote is always greater than the Recorded vote. According to the Census Bureau, 5.4m (4.9%) of total votes cast in 2000 were uncounted. Approximately 4.0m were Gore votes. In 2004, 3.4m votes (2.7%) were uncounted of which 2.5m were for Kerry. The Election Calculator model (see below) indicates that 5.3m Kerry votes (7.9%) were switched to Bush.

OBAMA NEEDS A MASSIVE VOTER REGISTRATION AND GOTV EFFORT TO OVERCOME THE FRAUD.
In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the Vote Scam equivalent of Three-card Monte. What you see in the exit polls is not what you get in the recorded count; the recorded vote is never equal to the True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election.
Zogby and Harris were correct when they projected a Kerry win. But Bush won a rigged recorded vote while Kerry won the True vote. As in Three-Card Monte, what you see is not what you get. Election forecasters and media pundits who projected a Bush victory avoid mentioning the overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown while it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final Exit Poll to force a match the recorded vote count. Bush won the corrupt Recorded vote but lost the True vote. The final 2004 Election Model projection gave Kerry 337 EV and 51.8% of the two party vote. Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59m with 286 EV.

Wouldn't the fact that no one is mentioning the fraud factor provide a clue that there is no credibility given this topic outside of the small circle of election fraud conspiracy theorists?

Are you saying that you don't believe that fraud occurred in 2000 and 2004?
And that Bush won both elections fair and square?
And that voting machines cannot be rigged?

Then I guess you believe that Bushco would never attempt to steal elections.
So you trust Bushco to always do the right thing?

Small circle of conspiracy theorists?
You must be part of the small circle of Bush believers.

Over zealous campaign workers from both parties push the envelope in every election. Wide spread fraud resulting in a stolen election, no.



Yep.



Electronic voting machines are vulnerable if not tightly controlled. However, there is no evidence of wide spread fraud involving electronic voting machines in either the 2000 nor the 2004 election.



Left wing conspiracy theory.



I don't trust any politician to always do the right thing.



Yep.



Whether I believe Bush or not has nothing to do with my position on election fraud. There is no proof the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. For that reason, mainstream America ignores it. The only ones who continue to push this are the small number of conspiracy theorists. By the tone of your post, I'm guessing you are one of them.

Uhm... The Supreme Court stepping in, stopping a vote count... as a "one time thing" sounds very fishy to me.

On Bush v. Gore 2000



But anyways.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...?showtopic=7554

I really suggest the documentary for you... hopefully it plays again on Starz if you have premium channels. Don't be afraid of proving yourself ill-informed by MSM. They were complicit in stolen elections by only telling the truth here and there when it was too late.

I've also read "The Betrayel of America" by Vincent Buliosi. In both cases, they are rendering their opinions as a lawyer.

Everyone has an opinion regarding the sequence of events, but they are just that, opinions.



I'm very familiar with the Black Box Voting organization, as well as their electronic vote hacking demonstrations. I don't dispute the vulnerabilities of electronic voting technology. The seriousness of this was clearly outlined in a GAO report on the subject. I agree that we have a long way to go before this technology is fully mature and agree that we need to remain vigilent.

Unfortunately, Election Fraud conspiracy theorists like to tout this vulnerability as proof of massive voter fraud and stolen elections. As was also pointed out in the GAO report, there is no evidence of any voter fraud using electronic voting technology.

It is a stolen election when the people manufacturing the software are throwing fundraisers for certain candidates. And those candidates for some reason always have malfunctioning machines in their favor? And a software programmer, Clint Curtis, and a person working at a law firm were both whistleblowers talking about the conspiracy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business...mp;ei=5007&

This one is one of my favorites. I rebutted it a number of times on the previous RRMB.

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year," wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio.

Within this context, O'Dell was pledging to work hard, as any partisan campaigner would, to ensure Ohio ends up in Bush's column.

Only a conspiracy theorist would take this statement literally to mean that he would reprogram Diebold software to steal the election.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_O'Dell



Spin, with no supporting evidence.



From Wikipedia, Curtis's allegations followed by Feeney's response. Irregardless, any software he might have written was never implemented.

Vote-rigging allegations
Curtis specifically alleged that:

At the behest of Rep. Tom Feeney, in September 2000, he was asked to write a program for a touchscreen voting machine that would make it possible to change the results of an election undetectably. This technology, Curtis explained, could also be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. Curtis assumed initially that this effort was aimed at detecting Democratic fraud, but later learned that it was intended to benefit the Republican Party.

West Palm Beach was named as an intended target, but used punched card ballots in the 2000 elections. Indeed, West Palm Beach was famous for the "hanging chad" recounts of that election.

Curtis explained that the software could be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. He spoke about this to the Conyers Voting Forum, after Conyers left the forum and turned over the dais on December 13, 2004[1].


[edit] Feeney's response to allegations
In 2005, Feeney responded to Curtis's allegations in a news article posted in the St. Petersburg Times. According to the newspaper, Feeney stated:

that he had no recollection of ever meeting Curtis or of discussing vote fraud with anyone;
that he could not have discussed a plan to commit fraud in touch screen voting machines in September or October 2000, as alleged by Curtis, because, "touch screen voting machines were not even contemplated until November 2000"; and
that although Curtis accused Feeney of a wide variety of misconduct in a 2004 book, Curtis never mentioned the alleged vote fraud scheme.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis