A body of criticism from Mark Crispin Miller and others is building.

Here: http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

I hope Mr. Manjoo will defend his piece, or if necessary, concede his own mistakes.

This is an important topic that Salon has followed consistently.

It would be a shame to think that Mr. Manjoo took a contrarian position just to raise eyebrows.

Dave

Manjoo’s piece may have exposed some of Kennedy’s faulty conclusions about the Ohio results, but it failed to satisfactorily address the overall arch of Kennedy’s, and our, complaint. There were things about the Ohio results that indicated something was afoot. Coming on the heels of the 2000 election, the fact that Blackwell, as was widely reported in the press, engaged in administrative tricks and legal machinations to thwart or influence the outcome of the election, the thin margins of victory, the reports on the ground of long lines in Democratic strongholds, the provisional balloting screw-ups, etc., all add up to there being some degree of effort on behalf of state and some local officials to deliver the state to Bush. (It appears that in every “foul up” or “glitch” in the system, regardless of where it occurred in the state, it involved an over counting of Bush votes, which is difficult to accept as mere chance.) It’s highly doubtful that there was a “master plan“, hatched by the Machiavellian Rove in co-hoots with Diebold and local partisan flacks. (More like, "Ken, do what you gotta do." Wink, wink)

Manjoo is focused on proving Kennedy wrong on the details (he's still upbraiding Kennedy for his alturism story?) not on addressing this issue, which several others have raised without getting any answers. There was nothing new in Majoo’s piece. He wrote the same piece a while back. Any legal or constitutional questions aside, the concern is whether the efforts and activities of state and local election officials were the tipping point that delivered the state to Bush. We will most assuredly never get an answer to that question. I don’t know anything about how to “steal” an election in the United States, but I suspect there are any number of ways to accomplish it, in the same way that Congress has, whether Republican or Democratic, of seeing to it that their employers, the corporate cartels, syndicates, banks and other special interests (in this admin., religious), who pay for their political campaigns, are repaid and supported with taxpayers’ largesse. How do I love thee? Oh let me count the ways!

That the way in which the U.S. conducts elections is rickety, out-dated, and subject to rather easy manipulation is not new information. Little if anything has been done to effectively change that. In the same way that no meaningful changes have been made in the ethics rules governing governmental employees in the wake of the Abramoff scandals.

It is somewhat of a mystery why Kerry didn’t put up a fight over the Ohio results, although he didn’t put up much of a fight during the campaign either (His lackluster campaign was appalling, even though every issue was in his favor. And then playing dead while the Shit Boaters torpedoed his reputation!) Part of the outcome in Ohio has to be blamed on Kerry and his handlers, who seemed not to understand, or care, that the Republican attack dogs meant to rip out his throat. Politics is a blood sport. Although we too often think of it as a “game”, people literally live or die based on the outcomes. Until our present nightmare has ended, we will wonder what kind of world we’d be living in today with a President Kerry. One would like to believe that at a minimum, he would have made Congress earn their keep.

I'm not the first to mention this, but it would be easier to believe Kennedy if he hadn't previously written controversial articles detailing an alleged link between autism and mercury found in vaccines. One of these articles was published on Salon (for shame).

Kennedy's autism articles were sensationalist, manipulative scare-mongering, dependent on a conspiracy theory and has been completely debunked.

(e.g. http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html)

Why are readers willing to cancel their Salon subscriptions in order to defend RFK?

There is a pretty scathing reply to Manjoo's article in the comment thread on Digby's blog about the actual facts and events on the ground: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/114935027329276958/#552948

Yes, this is still an important issue, because Ken Blackwell is running for governor of Ohio in November, while, at the same time, serving as Secretary of State. In other words, he's running for office, while being responsible for the vote count! How wrong is that?!!

BTW, I witnessed the long lines here in Columbus in '04 - I stood in line for 2 hours in my blue collar neighborhood. My pastor, who is African-American and lives in a predominantly white community, was challenged as soon as they took one look at her. Long lines - sure, these could be chalked up to incompetence, but the occurances were so widespread, it gives one pause. Challenging of voters - that was Ken Blackwell's idea, as cited in Sen. Kennedy's article. Perhaps Sen. Kennedy was a little over-enthusiastic in his interpretation of some of the data, but this stuff did happen, folks, and it's gonna happen again!!

As one of the (applied) statisticians cited Kennedy’s article, I find that Manjoo’s “debunking” is either superficial spin that is easily refuted by adding more detail to Kennedy’s already very long piece, or simply factually erroneous.

a) Making the point that voters sometimes do vote more often for a “down ticket” candidate is hardly a “rebuttal”. First of all this was not a normal election but rather one of the hardest fought Presidential races in recent history in a key battleground state. Moreover, Connally was an under-funded and largely unknown candidate from Cleveland, and all of these counties are far from Cleveland. But even if we disregard this, anybody who wishes to check the numbers posted on the Secretary of State of Ohio’s official website will find that: a) nine out of only 14 counties (out of a total of 88 counties in Ohio) where Bush did abnormally well (over 43% better) relative to Moyer (the Republican Supreme Court nominee) just happen to be the same 12 counties where Kerry inexplicably did worse than Connally, b) this was not a result of voters in these counties switching from Moyer to Connally as Connally’s vote is worse than the Ohio county average in all but one of these counties and Moyer’s vote is better than the county average in all but one of the 12, c) the “lost Kerry” vote of 81,599 (relative to the average Kerry/Connally ratio) just happens to be just about equal to the “excess Bush” vote of 75,766 (relative to the average Bush/Moyer average in the 12 counties), and d) when one looks at the county by county pattern of “lost” Kerry votes to “excess” Bush votes, they match almost perfectly in their orders of magnitude – see the table below:

"Excess Bush Votes", "Lost" Kerry Votes, County

2,712 4,070 Auglaize

2,264 2,771 Brown

26,913 25,123 Butler

10,077 13,855 Clermont

2,829 4,078 Darke

1,751 2,130 Highland

3,579 4,027 Mercer

3,710 5,882 Miami

2,974 2,013 Putnam

4,069 4,096 Shelby

1,376 1,968 Van Wert

13,512 11,586 Warren

75,766 81,599 Total

As Kennedy notes such an approximately 80,000 vote shift from Kerry to Bush indicated by this one "anomaly" would have given Bush an additional 160,000 votes, more than enough to steal an election which Bush won by about 119,000 votes.

b) Manjoo’s claims that exit polls are not always accurate and that Mitfosky has an “explanation” for the large discrepancies (that he acknowledges were both highly significant statistically and the largest since 1988 in the January report) are both irrelevant when one considers the pattern of the exit poll discrepancy in Ohio – see graph below:

See Table on p. 6 of ElectionArchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/Ohio2004-US-future.pdf

These are “within-precinct discrepancies” or ((Kerry -Bush Official Vote) minus (Kerry – Bush Exit Poll shares)) for each of the 49 precincts for which exit polls were taken in Ohio based on data released by the Election Science Institute in a report in which Mitofsky is listed as an “assisting author”. (Note that there are not 49 bars as some precincts have the same official Kerry vote share so that the bar is an average WPD.) Negative WPD reflects large Kerry exit poll “overstatements” relative to official vote counts. Note that almost all of the discrepancies are negative (against Kerry). In fact, as Kennedy reports, 20 of the 22 statistically significant discrepancies (large enough so that they could not plausibly be the result of random sampling error ) are against Kerry. But even more striking is the pattern. On the right side in “high Kerry” precincts (above 57% official vote count – right of the red vertical line) there is a more or less random pattern of Bush (positive) and Kerry (negative) discrepancies, whereas on the left side (below 57% official Kerry vote – left of red line) almost all of the discrepancies (and all of the statistically significant discrepancies) go against Kerry. Moreover the precincts on the left are densely clustered whereas they are more dispersed on the right.

This strikingly non-uniform pattern cannot be explained by either large but “unbiased” (not one-sided) exit poll discrepancies – the pattern on the right, or by a “reluctant Bush voter response to the exit Poll” (“rBr” - Mitofsky’s hypothetical explanation) as this would not even produce the pattern on the left, not to mention the un-biased discrepancy on the right. Those who have been following the 2004 exit poll debate know that rBr would produce a “U” shaped pattern of discrepancies that are larger in more competitive precincts and taper off to nearly zero in highly partisan precincts. There is no such pattern on the left of the graph. But the pattern displayed is perfectly consistent with “vote shifting” from Kerry to Bush that would “move” precincts by their official vote count to the left thus producing large negative Kerry WPD and much smaller Bush WPD, and a clustering of precincts on the left. In fact Manjoo’s (or Lindeman’s) calculations of overall exit poll response averages are simply mathematically wrong as they don’t take into account the larger proportion of Kerry or Bush voters in the “high Kerry” or “high Bush” precincts respectively – for accurate exit poll response rate estimates, and an explanation of why Mitofsky’s data contradicts his own “rBr” hypothetical see NEDA reports.

c) Manjoo’s claim that Mitofsky’s “rBr” hypothetical has not been decisively disproved is bunk. We applied an “optimal” (in the sense that this explained the WPD in more precincts than any other level of “rBr”) 59% to 50% "rBr" to the Ohio data and found that 30% of Ohio’s exit polled precincts still had significant discrepancy, that these were still overwhelmingly against Kerry (11 out of 15) resulting in a 4.3% WPD against Kerry that was still more than double Bush’s 2.1% margin of victory in Ohio – see NEDA January report.

d) Finally, Manjoo’s claim that WPD in Ohio was “not outside the margin of error” is wrong. Based upon a very liberal 30% “cluster factor” increase in the margin of error proposed (after the election) by Mitfosky, there was only about a 1 in 100 chance for the approximately 6.8% (weighted statewide) WPD in Ohio. This is well over any reasonable margin of error (typically set at about 1 in 20).