MASSACHUSETTS 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count
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.
The United States remains one of the
few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote
counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its
elections.[ii]
Countries such as Germany,
Norway,
Netherlands,
France,[iii]
Canada,[iv]
United Kingdom,
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries
protect the integrity of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting
of paper ballots.[v]
[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020 at 8:00 PM.
Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category.
Number of EP respondents: 1,394. As this first published exit poll was
subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote
count, the currently published exit poll differs from the results above.
[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total
computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (94% reporting) updated
on March 4, 2020 and published by The
New York Times. Total number of voters: 1,327,374
[3] The difference between the exit
poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting
values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value
indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total
reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, candidate Biden,
reported percentage/proportion of the total vote increased by 4.5% compared to
his exit poll share.
[4] This column shows the percentage
increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in
column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two). Shown only
for candidates with 4% or more share in the exit poll.
[5]
This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) of the exit poll (EP) for
the differences between candidate Biden and each of the other candidate’s EP
results. The exit poll MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 4.0% and
the MOE between Biden and Warren is 3.9%. For simplicity MOE not shown
for candidates with less than 4% share in the EP. MOE calculated according to multinomial
formula in: Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised February
2007. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
[6]
The disparities between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote
counts comparing Biden and each of the other candidates (subtracting each
candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference
of 4.5%.). Disparities for candidates Sanders and Warren are double their
respective MOE. For example, candidate Biden’s unverified computerized vote
count exceeded his EP projected vote proportion by 4.5% while Sander’s computerized
count understated his EP projected vote proportion by 3.7% for at total
discrepancy of 8.2%. This 8.2% disparity, greatly exceeding the statistical 4.0%
margin of error based on their exit poll proportions, is significant as it
cannot be attributed to the MOE.
[i]
Sanders received 49,045 less votes than projected by the exit poll and Warren 48,000
less.
[ii]
Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup
World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of
U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing
confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25
other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.
[iii]
During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities)
were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability
of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that
remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting
machines. In the 2012
elections only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French
government desires a total ban on their use.
[iv]
In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by
hand-counted paper ballots. Some
provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See here,
here
and here.
[v] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.
Massachusetts 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll. Published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night.
Note: The exit poll vote proportions for each candidate was derived from the gender category. Candidate’s share of the male vote was multiplied with the total male proportion and added to the candidate’s proportion of the female vote multiplied with the total female vote to arrive at the candidate’s exit poll share in the state.
Comments below that may be helpful to the reader:
LINK
