Will any mainstream pollster, and/or polling analyst–like Nate Silver–ever deign to talk about this matter?


From Jonathan Simon:


Stephen Herrington’s examination of the polling sleight-of-hand that occurs when pollsters move to “Likely Voter” samples as elections approach unfortunately misses a key point, perhaps the key point.

The “Likely Voter” samples, which so strongly favor the Republicans relative to the “Registered Voter” samples, are generated by the “Likely Voter Cutoff Model” (LVCM), first instituted several years ago by an extreme right-wing descendant of the reputable and venerable George Gallup.

What LVCM does is exclude (“cut off”) entirely from the sample any respondents who do not pass the seven-question “Likely Voter” test which Herrington reproduces and which is now a polling standard. Thus a whole group of voters who will in fact go to the polls (their aggregate likelihood of voting might be 30% or 50%) are assigned a zero likelihood of voting and dropped from the sample (a methodologically sound poll would weight responses based on respondents’ likelihood of voting, but not arbitrarily assign a zero weight, excluding them entirely). As Herrington notes, these excluded respondents are disproportionately Democratic voters. “Likely Voter” polls therefore substantially oversample Republicans and their results are skewed accordingly.

Here’s the rub: these Likely Voter polls are used and relied upon because, in the era of computerized voting, they keep getting important and competitive elections “right.” How can a poll that relies upon a methodological abomination “work” so well? No one–certainly not pollsters or the MSM–is bothering to ask this disturbing little question. Disturbing because the only rational answer is that the official vote-counts themselves are skewed Republican or “red-shifted.”

Election forensics experts have found the red-shift–rightward shift of vote-counts relative to exit polls, tracking polls, and hand counts–in every biennial election since 2002. What we’re seeing now, however, is that polling is catching up to the red shift. Tracking polls use the LVCM to account for the unexplained but pervasive pattern of competitive contests coming out more Republican than a methodologically sound poll would predict. And both tracking and exit polls are now weighted according to demographics (e.g., party ID) drawn from exit polls “adjusted” rightward to match red-shifted votecounts in prior elections, a further boost to Republicans.

So outcome determinative computerized manipulation of elections to the right now enjoys full cover from distorted tracking polls and exit polls. “Shocking” results are no longer shocking if they’ve been predicted by the polls. The LVCM is a big part of that story, since it adds to the weighting distortion derived from the “adjusted” exit polls of prior elections. It’s all sewn up rather neatly and, unless someone influential begins asking the disturbing little questions immediately, will ensure that election theft continues to determine the direction of America in this bizarre new world of computerized “democracy.”


3 Comments to ““Likely Voter” samples over-represent the GOP (MUST-READ)”

  • Readers should be reminded that exit polls are an international standard used to verify the accuracy of vote counting.

  • As usual, Jonathan has it exactly right. And in case your readers are unaware, it is because of Jonathan that we see right through the media polling scams, whether in the pre-election LV polls or the final exit polls which are FORCED TO MATCH bogus recorded vote counts.

    Jonathan jump-started the election activist movement on Election Day 2004. He downloaded preliminary exit poll composite result which showed that Kerry was a clear winner.

    That singular, prescient act inspired my efforts in producing the comprehensive analysis reflected in my book “Proving Election Fraud”. I’m sure that Simon’s exit poll anomalies were also a strong influence for MCM in his books: “Fooled Again” and “Loser Take All”.

    The 2010 Midterms Forecast model not only displays the deviations between Senate and Generic House RV and LV pre-election polls, it also shows the relationship between incremental vote-switching scenarios and LV projections.

    The Democrats do 6-7% better in RV polls than in the LVs. That was true in 2004, 2006 and 2008 – and it’s also true in 2010:


  • […] Jonathan Simon on the Likely Voter Cutoff Model October 18, 2010 richardcharnin Leave a comment Go to comments http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/10/likely-voter-samples-over-represent-the-gop-must-read/ […]

Post comment

Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf

“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD

About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!

Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts


Need a bigger font size?

Sponsored Links

  • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.