Archives : FR | IT | ES

Articles since 2022

Exit Polls vs Official Counts: Dr. Freeman and Mr. Mitofsky Face-Off in Election Fraud Debate

Wednesday 12 October 2005

- Contact the author

Two experts face-off in lively lectures and discussion about the utility of exit polls when compared to official counts, the potential for election fraud and the role of statistics in adjudicating critical issues of public importance. The University of Pennsylvania’s departments of Center for Organizational Dynamics and Political Science and the Philadelphia Chapter of the
American Statistical Association (ASAP) will host the debate.

Like most politically savvy Americans, Steve Freeman Ph.D., was glued to the television on election night, 2004. As he poured over exit polling data on CNN’s website, he was fairly confident John Kerry was in the lead by a projected 5 million votes. But after all the votes were tallied, especially in the battleground states such as Ohio, the final tally swung well beyond the exit poll’s margin of error to favor the President.

But unlike most Americans, Freeman holds a Ph.D. in Organizational
Studies, and is a Visiting Scholar at Penn’s Center for Organizational Dynamics where he teaches research methods, including polling. natural curiosity and academic diligence led him to research the issue in as much detail as possible, and the results appear in his forthcoming book on the matter titled, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? to be published next month by Seven Stories Press. His thesis is that the official explanation for the difference between exit poll and official results ("Within Precinct Error" or WPE) — that across the country Kerry voters participated at a higher rate — is unsupported by the data. Instead, the WPE is statistically significantly correlated with election administration variables such as Republican gubernatorial control, state electoral importance and voting technology. These relationships are inconsistent with theses of polling bias, but consistent with theses of electoral fraud.

In direct counterpoint, Warren J. Mitofsky, a fellow of the American
Statistical Association, and President of Mitofsky International, which conducted the exit polling for the 2004 election on behalf of the National Election Pool, believes Freeman’s view regarding election fraud is not statistically accurate. Mitofsky contends that such "conspiracy theorists" after the election mistakenly claimed the exit polls validated their claim. He believes there was no evidence in the exit polls to substantiate these claims. Instead, he contends that on
election day the misinformation about the exit polls was spread by
inexperienced people trying to make sense of complex statistical data.
Mitofsky is currently writing a book on exit polling.

The two will square off in lectures and discussion on this very
important issue on Friday, October 14, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the
University of Pennsylvania Terrace Room, Logan Hall, 249 South 36th
Street in Philadelphia.

Coverage of the debate is by invitation through Larry Starr, executive director, Center for Organizational Dynamics, 215-898-6967. Interviews with Dr. Freeman and Mr. Mitofsky may be requested in advance of the debate. For more information, please visit http://www.organizationaldynamics@u... (What’s New) or .

Contact: Dava Guerin, 215-914-2040, 215-262-0740 (cellular)

Please ASK C-SPAN TO COVER THE EXIT POLL DEBATE between Freeman & Warren Mitofsky THIS FRIDAY, October 14, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

Please email or call C-SPAN!

Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover to

Main Number: (202) 737-3220

Forum posts

  • The answer to the debate is very simple: Mitofsky and his people have been bought off!

    • There is a pattern of voting machine fraud, with 15% to 25% errors in Bush’s favor, going back to 1994. The error between the exit poll result and the final vote count is always in Bush’s favor. In the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race, the error was 15% in Bush’s favor. In the Texas 1998 gubernatorial race, the error was AGAIN 15% in Bush’s favor. In the Texas 2000 presidential race, the error was 25% in Bush’s favor. The exit poll results are taken from Voter News Service, at, and the final vote counts are taken from from "America Votes", volume 24, ISBN 1-56802-600-5 at any large library. Also, other "key" republicans have 15% errors in their favor. In 1994, bush ran against Ann Richards. The exit poll shows she beat him by 8%, but after the voting machines added 15% to his total, he was declared the winner by 7%. In 1998 Bush ran against Mauro. The exit polls show Bush beat Mauro by 21%, but AGAIN the voting machines added 15% to his total, so Bush was declared the winner by 37%. In 2000, in Texas, Bush ran against Gore. The exit polls show Gore Beat Bush by 4%, but after the voting machines added 25% to Bush’s actual total, Bush was declared the winner by 21%. All the errors which favor Democrats are small, within predicted statistical limits of 5%. There were no exit polls done in 2002. In 1997, governor Bush changed the recount laws to make recounts virtually impossible in Texas. This is true stuff!!!! I have researched this thoroughly, and it shows a ruthless pattern of criminality and complete disregard for all we hold dear. The Bushies are Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, reborn. Americans need to know this history of fraud to understand the criminals who have taken over OUR country!!! Now, we are on the brink of martial law, and we will never recover if we allow martial law to take place. We must stand up NOW and demand PAPER BALLOTS. There is no other solution.

    • Amen to that brother!

  • Of the 6 types of voting systems used in Ohio in 2004, the only one that was within the exit poll sampling error (or even close for that matter), was also the only one that went in Kerry’s favor, and the only verifiable system - paper ballots. Results on the 5 riggable system types were all heavily skewed in Bush’s favor. Mitofsky’s explanation for how his exit poll could have been so wrong, that Bush voters were undersampled, was contradicted by his own data.

    • The French vote – always have voted –, by paper ballot.

      From ’French Election: Credibility through Hand Counting’. Christopher Bollyn’s observation of the French electoral process

      The French system of voting is simple, and efficient. Each polling station, or bureau, serves approximately 1,000 registered voters. In Avignon there are 57 polling bureaus. AFP observed the vote count in Avignon’s 1st bureau, located in the Hotel de Ville, or city hall.

      All voters are required to present their voting card and another form of identification before casting their vote. Each candidate’s name is printed on separate pieces of white paper, which the voters pick up with a blue envelope. In the voting booth they place the name of their chosen candidate into the envelope. Before putting the envelope into the transparent ballot box, voters are required to identify themselves and sign the register of voters.

      In Avignon when the polls closed at 6 p.m. the public was allowed to observe the counting of the ballots by the citizen counters or scrutateurs and election officials. The ballot box was unlocked and the blue envelopes containing the votes were dumped onto a large table around which the four scrutateurs sat. At least 70 members of the public crowded around to observe the count.

      First the envelopes were counted and stacked in sets of 100. Each stack of 100 envelopes was then placed in a numbered envelope. The ballots from each envelope of 100 were then counted by the scrutateurs and recounted before the tally was registered and authenticated.

      Within an hour after voting had ended, all 758 votes from the first bureau of Avignon had been counted, tallied, and authenticated. All of this was done in full view of the public.

      The tally sheets and documents were then locked in a box and taken by the president of each bureau to the central counting station, which in Avignon was upstairs in the city hall. All 57 bureaus ballot boxes were brought in and their tally sheets inspected. The results were then put into computer spreadsheet programs using a secure local network and posted on television monitors for public viewing.

      By 8 p.m. the tally was complete in most of the country and by counting a percentage of the metropolitan districts of Paris the projected results could be announced with reasonable accuracy.

      Full article:

      Don’t let anyone get by with the argument that paper ballot voting is impractical.

      Paper ballot voting is the only means to prevent wide-spread fraud.

    • <<....the only one that went in Kerry’s favor...paper ballots. Results on the 5 riggable system types were all heavily skewed in Bush’s favor.

      I am looking for solid references to this information. Can you direct to me as many sources as possible?
      Thank you very much.