The other Ohio Election Fraud diary essentially debunks the stolen election arguments that are based on the disparity between exit polls and the election tally. I think those critiques have been plausible and that any claims of fraud cannot be based
solely on exit polling.
However, I found the following two studies to present a far more compelling case for a stolen election. They are based soley on statistical analysis of what actually occurred at the voting machines themselves.
Interestingly enough, the second paper uses some very odd logic to deny that its own finding of bias means that the election was stolen.
This study analyzes voter reported errors in voting machine response. They have found that vote switching errors* favored Bush by a 12/1 margin.
*("I pressed the Kerry button, but it registered as Bush")
This Card and Moreti paper (warning! PDF) is the one that convinced me that the election was stolen. It essentially reports that voting machines had a "preference" for Bush.
Here is the money quote from the Card and Moreti paper:
"We first show that there is a small positive correlation between adoption of touch-screen voting technology and the level of electoral support for George Bush. In particular, we find that between 2000 and 2004, the Republican vote share increased more in counties that adopted touchscreen voting than in counties that did not. Although small, this effect would have been large enough to influence the final result in some closely contested states (for example, Ohio), and therefore the final election outcome."
Interestingly enough, they try to take it away with this statement:
"On the surface this finding would appear to be consistent with some of the allegations of voting irregularities associated with touch-screen voting technology that were raised at the time of the 2004 elections. However, a closer examination of the evidence suggests that this interpretation is implausible. If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results. To test this prediction, we fit a series of models that include indicators for use of touch-screen technology and the interaction of these indicators with indicators for whether the state was a swing state, or whether the Secretary of State (or the Governor) was Republican. We find no evidence that these interaction effects are positive. Indeed, if anything, the touch-screen voting effect is smaller in swing states, and in states with a Republican Secretary of State or Governor."
Essentially they are saying 'Yes, electronic voting tends to favor Bush, but there cannot be any fraud involved because the bias for Bush is global and not restricted to battleground states or to states where Republicans have influence over the vote process "
WTF kind of logic is THAT!?!?!?
If I was going to steal the election by hacking the electronic vote, I'd try to cover my tracks by inserting EXACTLY that kind of pattern. I'd create a global bias for my candidate and then where the "fraud hypothesis" would predict the bias to be at its highest level, I'd lower it but leave it at a high enough level to steal the election.
