Election verification exit poll

Around the world, election exit polls standard of verification[1] In the US, media exit poll operators note that their polls are not designed to detect fraud. Rather, their purpose is to project winners of races and provide for news coverage.[2] (q.v., National Election Pool)

Description

An election verification exit poll’s objective is not to predict election results, but rather to audit or verify the accuracy of vote counts in selected precincts. Therefore, EVEP pollsters focus is on targeted precincts. Polling is done comprehensively to allow for verification of official election results in targeted precincts. For example, in the 2006 United States Congressional elections, The Warren Poll (sponsored by Election Integrity) interviewed approximately 6000 voters in selected precincts in Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties.

Due to the comprehensive nature of exit polls, if EVEP results differ significantly from the reported results in the targeted precincts. It is reasonable to conclude the presence of errors in the official count given that exit poll methodologies have normally proved quite reliable. Not with standing, an EVEP remains a survey and may suffer from the various problems experienced by any survey (e.g. weather, interviewer interaction, distance restrictions, etc.).

Use

Exit polling in the United States, as well as in other countries of the world, has been used to question official results. For example, in the 2000 election in Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević claimed that he had defeated Vojislav Koštunica. However, exit polling cast great doubt of the accuracy of the reported count, suggesting that the vote count had been corrupted. Public and media pressure eventually forced Milošević to concede.[3]

The introduction of new electronic voting machines, especially ones that produce no paper trails, has caused many groups, including a considerable number of state and national political leaders, to call for remedies to vote count problems. Some have specifically advocated the use of EVEPs, especially in precincts that have historically had problems with fair vote counts. EVEP proponents believe that EVEP findings can be used to challenge dubious official vote counts in court.[3]

However, EVEPs have inherent weaknesses, especially as legal weapons in lawsuits. EVEP results are not 100% accurate; they are subject to an error margin. This makes them very difficult to use to challenge any election results that are close. Furthermore, the use of a truly random representative sample is problematic given that voters may choose not respond to the poll. Another serious problem is caused by the various ways people can vote (e.g., early voting, absentee voting, provisional voting, and regular voting). EVEP pollsters cannot poll those who vote early or vote absentee. If election board officials merge all the different kinds of voting alternatives, pollsters cannot accurately verify vote counts. EVEP pollsters interview only those who have cast regular ballots, or possibly provisional ballots.[3]

Contrast with media exit polls

While media polls can be used to detect, and even prosecute fraud with data that is made available,[4] the differences between EEVEP's and media exit polls lie in the purpose and methodologies used. The purpose of a media exit poll is to strategically poll many precincts to obtain a representative sample for an entire district (e.g., state, city) so election outcomes can be predicted. Most of the polling is done well before polling places close on Election Day so the exit poll results can be tabulated and presented by the news outlets immediately after the polls close. Since verifying particular precinct results is not an objective of media exit polls, typically only 1000-2000 voters are interviewed in an entire state, meaning that relatively few voters are interviewed in any given precinct. Consequently, an EVEP should be considerably more reliable (given that there is no within precinct bias) for the targeted precincts than media exit polling would be since a much larger sample of voters would be interviewed in these selected precincts. Media exit polling has incidentally served to cast doubt on official vote counts, but such polling is not particularly designed to verify election results.[3]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Warren Mitofsky, “2004 Exit Polls: What Bloggers And Others Got Wrong” [Presentation to the American Statistical Association], Philadelphia, October 14, 2005
  2. ↑ Warren Mitofsky, “2004 Exit Polls: What Bloggers And Others Got Wrong” Presentation to the American Statistical Association, Philadelphia, October 14, 2005
  3. 1 2 3 4 Kenneth F. Warren, "Election Verification Exit Poll" in the Encyclopedia of Campaigns and Elections (Sage, 2008)
  4. ↑ Steven F. Freeman, Who Really Won – and Lost – the 2004 US Presidential Election? Presentation to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, May 19, 2006
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.