By Theodore de Macedo Soares
The 2020 Massachusetts Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. As in the 2016 Massachusetts primary between candidates Sanders and Clinton, disparities greatly exceed the exit poll’s margin of error. Sanders won Massachusetts in the exit poll and lost it in the computer count.
The discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for Sanders and Biden totaled 8.2%— double the 4.0% exit poll margin of error. Warren’s and Biden’s discrepancies totaled 8.0%, also double the margin of error. These discrepancies replicate the total discrepancy of 8.0% favoring Clinton in the 2016 Massachusetts Democratic Party primary between her and Sanders. This time two progressive candidates exhibit the same discrepancies now favoring Biden representing the establishment’s choice.
Presidential candidates Biden’s and Bloomberg’s vote counts exhibited the largest disparity from their exit poll projections. Biden’s unobservable computer-generated vote totals represented a 15.7% increase of his projected exit poll share. Given the 1,342,905 voters in this election, he gained approximately 60,900 more votes than projected by the exit poll. Bloomberg increased his vote share by 28.2% and approximately 34,500 more votes than projected. Their gain came largely at the expense of candidates Sanders and Warren whose combined vote counts were 97,000 less than projected by the exit poll.[i]
Noteworthy is the fact that the 2016 Massachusetts Republican Party exit poll taken at the same time and at the same precincts as the Democratic Party primary, and also with a crowded field of five candidates, was matched almost perfectly by the computer count—varying by less than one percent for each candidate.
Exit polls are widely recognized—such as by, for example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—as a means for checking the validity of vote counts. The U.S. has financed exit polls in other countries to “ensure free and fair” elections […]
Via http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/
The Most Revolutionary Act 
to “ensure free and fair” elections?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s classic “Doublespeak,” Aunty, just like Orwell’s 1984. The people in power use words as weapons to convey the opposite of reality.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very perceptive comment from Mark (not accepted by WordPress for some reason): Wow! So, once again, it looks like someone has manipulated the secret vote count. Yes, although it’s a big secret, our votes are counted in secret now.
After all, you can watch a computer all day long, but you cannot see how it is counting. That’s why most of us keep receipts when we use a credit or debit card or ATM. We know that computers can malfunction or be hacked.
Anyway, thanks to the Help America Vote Act, in nearly every election in the U.S., the votes are counted in secret by computers which are programmed by one of three companies, not your local election officials.
While counting votes in secret has long been preferred by dictators, like Joseph Stalin, who want to pretend that their countries are democracies, it is obviously not as safe or effective as counting votes in public. By the way, several states require the votes to be counted in public including South Carolina and Massachusetts. In fact, the pertinent parts of Chapter I, Section II, Article II and Chapter II, Section I, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts require the ballots to be counted in open town meetings.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Umm guessing since you understand basic statistics, you understand the difference between population data (vote counts) and a sample (polls). If your sample doesn’t match the population, the problem is not in the population.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Brandon. I suspect the problem in Massachusetts is a bit more complex than sampling error. The studies referred to in the article refer to a strong statistical correlation historically between exit polls and vote counts. There have too many cases in the past where investigation into these discrepancies has revealed deliberate software hacking and manipulation in voting machines or vote counting machines. This is why so many people are calling for a return to either paper ballots or paper backup of computerized voting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why are you using the early exit poll numbers (n~600) rather than the final tally (n=1,443)? I’ve never seen the early results beyond top-line numbers and the reported +/-4% MOE. The latter implies a sample of about 600.
The final tally lines up much more closely. The difference between the early and final exit poll is statistically reasonable.
LikeLike
The reason they use the early exit poll data is that in the US exit polls are “adjusted” after the results are released to match the results more closely. In any other country in the world the US would call that fraud and demand new elections. By using the early results you can get a better idea of what was done and why. In the case cited here. it would be ludicrous to claim that these numerous “statistically reasonable” errors would all just happen to benefit Biden and Bloomberg at the expense of Sanders and Warren. The reason that exit polling is so accurate is that they are asking people how they just voted. There would be no reason to give inaccurate info.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for clarifying, Zuris. This is also my understanding. As I recall they have been studying these discrepancies since 2004 at least – and every time a discrepancy pops up the exit poll data is readjusted to match the actual vote.
LikeLike
Thanks, Stuart and especially Zuris. The land/ home of the brave and free is as far removed from real democracy as they can get, some day the US will actually promote democracy within their own country instead of demanding from others, who have a far superior democracy, that they should adopt America’s corrupt system. Auntie uta has the right of it, except for the “what” in front which would have been rather superfluous anyway.
LikeLike
The US is the only country, Mohandeer, that uses computerized vote counting machines without any paper backup.
LikeLike
If this had happened somewhere else the UN would have been called in to oversee the elections. Look what the US has done to Bolivia and Venezuela who had much fairer elections.
LikeLike
Excellent point, Caleb.
LikeLiked by 1 person