Views > December 10, 2004

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

By Joel Bleifuss

Did the Bush-Cheney campaign engage in electronic vote fraud to ensure that George W. Bush would be president for another four years? That is a question every small-d democrat should be asking.

Much has been written on the Internet alleging that the election was stolen. Some writers are members of the tin-foil hat brigade, but others provide sober analysis of the election results that raise disturbing questions.

Unfortunately, thanks to the herd instinct in our current media culture, anyone who publicly raises this question is immediately labeled a conspiracy theorist.

In the December 6 Nation, Alexander Cockburn dismissed such speculation, writing, “As usual, the conspiracy nuts think plans of inconceivable complexity worked at 100 percent efficiency.” Dan Thanh Dang of the Baltimore Sun put it this way: “John F. Kerry barely had time to concede the presidential race before the conspiracy theory began circulating.” The headline: “Election paranoia surfaces; Conspiracy theorists call results rigged.”

On November 14, a New York Times editorial delivered the final verdict on what is now the conventional wisdom:

There is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale. … There is also no way to be sure that the nightmare scenario of electronic voting critics did not occur: votes surreptitiously shifted from one candidate to another inside the machines, by secret software. It’s important to make it clear that there is no evidence such a thing happened, but there will be concern and conspiracy theories until all software used in elections is made public.

Suspend disbelief, buck conventional wisdom and suppose that “such a thing happened”—that the Bush-Cheney campaign “won” the election through systematic electronic voting fraud.

Would the Bush-Cheney campaign have any qualms about stealing an election? Of course not. They did it in 2000.

They had the motive, and they had the will. But is there any evidence that voting fraud was committed?

Circumstantial evidence

Among the most compelling circumstantial evidence are the independent exit polls that predicted that John Kerry was destined to be the next president. Why were the exit polls, historically so accurate, so wrong?

“Exit polls are almost never wrong,” wrote Republican pollster Dick Morris in the November 4 issue of The Hill. “So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.” So perplexed was Morris by the data, he suspected a liberal media conspiracy to fix the exit polls so that the networks would declare Kerry a winner and thereby discourage potential Bush voters in the West from going to the polls.

Steven F. Freeman, a statistical analysis professor at the University of Pennsylvania, found some disturbing anomalies when he examined the discrepancies between the predicted vote (exit polls) and the tallied results in 11 battleground states—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The figures he used for the predicted vote came from the exit polls posted by CNN on its Web site. Due to an apparent computer glitch, CNN posted “uncalibrated” data—exit poll data not yet “corrected” to conform to the announced vote tallies—on its Web site until 1:30 a.m. (EST) election night.

In all of these states except Wisconsin, writes Freeman, the predicted margin of votes for each candidate differed from the tallied margin of votes for each candidate, with all the differences going in favor of Bush.

For example, Ohio exit polls predicted that Kerry would win 52.1 percent of the vote to Bush’s 47.9 percent. But the tallied vote had Bush winning 51 percent of the vote to Kerry’s 48.5 percent. The difference, then, between Ohio exit poll projections and the actual tallied vote for Kerry comes to 3.6 percent. Based on the size of the sample the exit polling firms were working with, the likelihood of this happening is less than 1 in 1000. Doing a similar analysis with exit polls in Florida, Freeman found a less than three in 1000 chance that the tallied results would differ as much as they did from the exit poll projections. And while Kerry did carry Pennsylvania, the chance that he would receive only 50.8 percent of the vote after exit polls indicated he would get 54.1 percent (a 3.3 percent difference) is less than two in 1000. Finally, according to Freeman, the odds against all three of these statistical anomalies occurring together are 250 million to one.

“As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible,” he writes, “it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.”

What could account for this?

Freeman examines various explanations that have been made in the media for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the tallied vote, and finds all of them lacking.

“Neither the pollsters nor their media clients have provided solid explanations to the public,” Freeman writes. “Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the election’s unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies and the public to investigate.”

Mystery votes

Examining the election results from a different angle, a team of researchers at the University of California, Berkeley analyzed the vote in Florida and found that, mysteriously, “electronic voting raised President Bush’s advantage from the tiny edge he held in 2000 to a clearer margin of victory in 2004.” The researchers calculate that electronic voting machines may have given Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received. (Bush won Florida by 360,000 votes.) In the 15 Florida counties using electronic touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes tallied for Bush significantly exceeded the number of votes he should have received based on voter demographic and voter turnout data. This was especially true in the large, heavily Democratic counties of Broward, Palm Beach and Dade. In Florida counties that used other voting systems, Bush received the same number of votes that the data predicted.

Michael Hout, the chair of Berkeley’s Sociology and Demography graduate program, told Kim Zetter of Wired.com, “No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained.”

The Berkeley researchers did a similar study in Ohio, but found no such correlation.

Both Hout and Freeman caution that their research has not yet undergone peer review. Freeman writes, “I have tried to be as rigorous as possible in my data collection, review and analysis. … To hold it to an academic standard of rigor, however, requires extensive peer review.”

Nightmare scenario

Was it technically possible to steal the election through electronic voting fraud? As the New York Times editorial noted, there is “is no way to be sure that the nightmare scenario of electronic voting critics did not occur.”

How secure were the electronic machines that were used to tabulate and count the vote? Diebold, the country’s largest voting machine company, made news in 2003 when leaked interoffice memos revealed that company executives knew that their machines were poorly protected against hackers. And in July 2003, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reported that an examination of one Diebold voting system revealed “significant security flaws,” noting that “voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no build-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.”

In Ohio, more than 35 counties used Diebold machines and nationwide, according to the company’s Web site “over 75,000 Diebold electronic voting stations are being used.”

So, somebody could have hacked the vote.

On November 5, Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Robert Wexler (Fla.), noting widespread questions raised about the accuracy of the results of the 2004 election, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the “efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election.”

“The essence of democracy,” they wrote, “is the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. In 2000, that confidence suffered terribly, and we fear that such a blow to our democracy may have occurred in 2004.”

Responding on November 23, the GAO agreed to examine “the security and accuracy of voting technologies, distribution and allocation of voting machines and counting of provisional ballots.”

That would be a good place to start.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  It may be too late, but a reasonable sample of the Ohio Diebold machines must be impounded and the demand be made under Freedom of Information that computer experts be allowed to examine the program code in those machines. The same should be done with the PCs that processed the optically scanned ballots in Florida.

  Posted by Edwin D. Reilly on Dec 10, 2004 at 7:46 AM

  You have some misinformation in your 12/10 column, “Was the 2004 Election Stolen.” In the column, you stated that “In Ohio, more than 35 counties used Diebold machines...” in the 11/2 election.  For your information, Ohio decided earlier in the year that there was not adequate time to implement new voting systems prior to the election on November 2.  If you read our announcement in which I believe you’re referring (which is nearly a year old) closely , it clearly states that “Half of the 71 Ohio counties eligible to select an electronic voting system provider have preliminarily chosen Diebold Election Systems.” To date, these systems have not been installed. In the interest of accuracy in reporting, we would appreciate a clarification in your publication.

  Also, Diebold had systems in only 2 counties in Ohio on election day—Lucas (which went to Sen. Kerry by a wide margin) and Hardin (a very small jurisdiction in NW Ohio). Both used paper-based optical scan systems. Elsewhere in the country, our touchscreen systems were used predominantly, and with very positive feedback, in Georgia, Maryland, California (Alameda County), Texas and Kansas. None of which were swing states in the presidential election. 

  Also, as of June 2, 2004, Diebold’s Board of Directors authorized a change to the company’s corporate ethics policy to address the importance of the issue of political bias. In recognition of the necessity for strict neutrality concerning political candidates and issues, the chief executive officer, president, and chief financial officer of Diebold, Incorporated and those Diebold, Incorporated executives identified by the Company as responsible for the oversight of its election systems companies, as well as all employees of those companies, may not make contributions to, directly or indirectly, any political candidate, party, election issue or cause, or participate in any political activities, except for voting.

  To view the Diebold, Incorporated business ethics policy, visit:
  http://nocache.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=DBD&script=2250#t top

  Also, FYI, there has been another statistical study that refutes the findings of the earlier Cal-Berkeley study, re: electronic voting in Florida. You can read about this at http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65896,00.html.  You may need to clarify this as well.

  Mike Jacobsen
  Director, Global Communications
  Diebold, Incorporated

  Posted by Michael Jacobsen on Dec 10, 2004 at 7:52 AM

  “Also, as of June 2, 2004, Diebold’s Board of Directors authorized a change to the company’s corporate ethics policy to address the importance of the issue of political bias. In recognition of the necessity for strict neutrality concerning political candidates and issues, the chief executive officer, president, and chief financial officer of Diebold, Incorporated and those Diebold, Incorporated executives identified by the Company as responsible for the oversight of its election systems companies, as well as all employees of those companies, may not make contributions to, directly or indirectly, any political candidate, party, election issue or cause, or participate in any political activities, except for voting.”

  Yeah and Enron had an ethics policy too ( i think you can purchase a copy on Ebay), so what that doesn’t make up for all the previous comments or contributions made by Diebold’s CEO and other corp officers. Diebold’s credibility is about zero along with the credibility of results spat out by their machines.

  Posted by meade on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:36 AM

  Mr Jacobsen, do you really expect that we believe nothing happened in the 2004 election that shouldnt have? Because you issue a statement at all makes me wonder why you feel the need to “address” your ethics policies. We know where and we know what happened. You can run but you can’t hide. Eventually it will all catch up with you and everyone else who had their dirty hands all over this election and the 2002 election and the 2000 election. Maybe you’d have better luck convincing Fox viewers that Iraq will have a fair election, especially if Diebold is involved. Good luck with all that. All you did here is deepen my suspician and distrust of the corporate entity you work for, you know the one’s who pay you to say what you say and do what you do. You helped “elect” an illegitimate president, and now you want us to beleive the Diebold company has ethics? I suppose you are one of the “right” who also believes values won this election. Yeah, go tell it to someone who you can convince.

  Teresa Scarberry

  Posted by teresa on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:54 AM

  The exit poll of CNN showed that Bush wins in OHIO. Why you pick Zogby but not CNN’s. Also, it is well known that urban voters vote for Kerry, but Rural voters vote for Bush. So, what is the turn out ratio in this election compared to the past? Will the past exit poll model still work (assigning weights to these two types of voters)for this election? Also, there were long lines in Philadelphia too. The democrates suppressed the black voters in Philadelphia? How about long lines in other republican heavy areas? So, the leftist are not the fair in criticising. Do you have evidence of fraud to overcome Bush’s winning of 3.5 million votes and winning ten (10) more states than Kerry. If the dirty tricks worked by overturning Ohio’s election by 100,000 votes, then Kerry became the President, Do you think it is fair that Kerry lost 3.4 million popular votes and lose 10 states. The leftist, including Jesse Jackson are just communists, he is not interested in fairness, but selfish motive. Now we all see this and Jesse Jackson’s political career will finish son, for most americans know him much better.

  Posted by tim on Dec 10, 2004 at 12:03 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 86 posts.

Member Login

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Keep the Heat on Obama
  
• EPA on Trial
  
• Bush’s Selective Mourning
  
• Piling it High
  The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day
• Political Vice Squad
  
• Red-Boating Obama