Real evidence of voter fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election has been consolidated in an extensive report appearing in RollingStone magazine, available online.

Interesting story, worthy of careful consideration, but I remain skeptical in the absence of credible whistleblowers.

See the RollingStone report here: Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen

The RS report gathers a large body of evidence based on the vast difference (in key places) between otherwise highly reliable exit polling data, and the actual results. Moreover, the startling deviations almost always favored Bush over Kerry. The chance is infinitesimally small that proven, time tested, reliable exit polling methodology would almost always severely underreport Bush votes, and would do so miraculously in just the key places, and would do so right after the election returns began to show that, as predicted, Kerry was winning.

There are always anomalies in statistics. But when anomalies are great, or anomalies seem to be concentrated non-randomly, then outide influence is implied.

Are such anomolies the same as evidence of fraud? Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that statistics are not useful evidence, consider the following: If a theory is true, such as “The 2004 election in Ohio was completely honest”, then the theory must also be able to explain and rebut facts which would tend to contradict the theory, or else the theory must be modified to fit the new facts.

New facts consist of the elaborate studies that have been conducted using the extensive exit polling data obtained from 2004. Exit polling is such a reliable field of inquiry that the US and the UN rely on exit polling to help determine whether voter fraud is occurring in third world countries we are monitoring for human rights violations.

And so, if statistical analyses point to serious election problems, then those who believe the theory “The 2004 election in Ohio was completely honest” must defend the theory. To defend the theory against statistical attack, defenders must find valid flaws in the statistics or flaws in the analyses of those statistics. Or else, the theory can be modified: “The 2004 election in Ohio was mostly honest”, etc ….

RadMod’s conclusion: Quite skeptical that the result was changed by criminal wrongdoing.

The behavior of the Ohio Secretary of State has apparently not been illegal, or else he’d be in jail. Blackwell’s actions have been studied extensively. We know what he did to reduce Democratic participation — If it were illegal, he’d have been prosecuted already.

The statistical evidence might suggest ballot stuffing in some important precincts, but there would certainly be multiple conspiracists, and that means someone would blow the whistle, or someone would have been approached about joining the conspiracy and would have refused and then blown the whistle, or someone would have bragged, and then more people would know and someone would blow the whistle ….

I’m waiting for some of the participants in the alleged conspiracy to come forward and confess. I personally believe that conspiracies are difficult to keep under wraps. Someone will always have a bout of conscience, or will have a falling out with the leaders, and will blow the whistle.

It’s been 6 years since the allegations of vote machine fraud started making their rounds in a big way, beginning with the 2000 Florida problems. But still, we have not heard of a credible whistleblower blowing the lid off the alleged conspiracy.

Jeez, the NSA can’t keep secrets when there’s major illegalities going on - what makes us think that these rank and file political conspiracists can keep secrets any better than hardcore government spooks?