I've done a substantive--and balanced-- response to Manjoo on MercuryRising (www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com).

For those who don't want to take the time, here are the highlights:

1. There are flaws in both Manjoo's and RFK's articles. In particular, I'll be happy to explain in detail to Manjoo by e-mail what the flaws in the Mitofsky explanation of the deviation in the exit polls are. But there are other significant errors.

2. There are unsupportable assumptions in Manjoo's reasoning. Raising allegations of electoral fraud for the purpose of urging an investigation does not require the level of proof Manjoo demands. What victim of a crime-- lacking the power of arrest and subpoena-- can prove that a particular suspect committed a crime? Viewed as a call for an investigation, Kennedy's article is fine. It certainly doesn't reach the burden of proof required in a courtroom, where liberty, life, and property are at risk.

3. Another implicit assumption has to do with how large of an electoral theft has to be proven before we act. It's normal in criminal cases that the criminal is not charged with everything he is guilty of. For example, Scooter Libby is being prosecuted for lying, not for treason. If George Bush, or an agent acting at his behest, stole even one vote, that would disqualify him from holding office. Demanding proof that 118,000 votes were stolen is an artificial and misguided standard. The proper standard-- and this can only be established by a formal investigation-- is to determine who (if anyone) ordered electoral theft.

Charles of MercuryRising

http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

What a bizarre article . . .

I'm trying to understand Farhad's motivation for writing this article. Is he concerned that many Salon readers have been misled? That we have been lied to and need to know the truth? Perhaps we have, and perhaps there are more liars out there than Robert F. Kennedy. Regardless, Farhad has bitten off this particular chunk of lies to disabuse his readers of.

Just as RFK is reporting old stories, Farhad is just as culpable for trotting out old rebuttals. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the overall smug, self-righteous affect of Farhad's article comes off like a beach bodybuilder kicking sand in someone's face, just because they can. Sure RFK may be guilty of hyperbole, just like many pushing the other side of this story. Farhad is equally capable of writing an article damning of the election apologists, but chose not to.

Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with being extra careful when it comes to insuring the legitimacy of our election processes. I'm not at all surprised that those who share my belief have sunk to the same tactics used by those who wish to undermine our basic right to choose our leadership. Like Farhad, I would prefer that people know the truth and act appropriately, but - wow - how on earth does he think beating up RFK is going to help anything?

Regardless of whether or not the election was stolen, if a stack of election irregularities can pile up at the feet of congress and ultimately be shrugged off as a normal part of the election process, unfortunate but unavoidable, what is to stop true electoral manipulations. It should be patently obvious to all in power that if they actually do try steal an election, any evidence will be written off as normal ("it happened in '04, right? And that election was clean!" Farhad demonstrates that if the conspiracy nuts keep pushing the issue, there will always be a someone willing to divert the conversation into the realm of political-infighting to fuel his own ego.

There's no reason to assume malfeasance must be limited to one party. After all, if they are doing it, we can't win without doing it too, right? Without a legitimate election process, we are not a democracy. Legitimacy must be protected and encouraged with all our energy. The onus must not be on our people and institutions to prove fraud where it may have occured, but to maintain all appearances of legitimacy and effectively investigate anything which undermines it. In this, the last few elections have been abject failures.

If Farhad really wants all us conspiracy nuts to crawl back into our caves, perhaps he might spend some time advocating for election reforms that limit the ability of political operatives to influence electoral politics and criminalizes the most egregious methods. I would doubtless sleep better if I thought there were real consequences for cheaters -- as it is, a politician (or party) these days would have to be an idiot not to.

Of course he doesn't. If the Republicans win God wins, if the Democrats win Satan wins. Of course NOTHING is more important than that. Certainly not what the majority votes for.

"How can you possibly suggest the Republican Party will do whatever it takes to get and keep power, including destroying our democratic process? La la la la la la LA la, I can't HEAR you!"

Farhad relies primarily on Mark Lindeman, Elizabeth Liddle, and Mark Blumenthal.

Here is a short piece that explains why these three wanna-be exit poll and election experts have never made a scientifically valid case:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/USCV_exit_poll_analysis.pdf

Here is an early rebuttal by Lindeman.

http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/doppresponse.pdf

and US Count Votes counter-rebuttal:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/ESI/Mark-Lindeman-Response.pdf

Everything that Lindeman writes needs to be checked against the source documents to prevent him from rewriting history. Farhad obviously did not do this.

Any professor with credentials in mathematics or statistics would agree with US Count Votes and not the wanna-be experts that Farhad trusts.

Why has no reputable scientific journal published Mitofsky's (and Election Science Institute's) bogus red shift/swing Ohio exit poll analysis?

Why has no reputable scientific journal has published any of Liddle or Lindeman's "distort and analyze" "exit poll response bias measures"?

Neither has any support in the scientific community - because they are mere sophistry.

No scientific theory is proven true until it can be independently replicated.

Why did Mitofsky not release the exit polling factors data that he claims shows that exit poll error caused the one-sided pro-Kerry discrepancies? (None of the exit polling factors data would violate voter anonymity, so there is no reason not to release it publicly.)

Why did Mitofsky not release sufficient data for a standard normal customary exit poll analysis for even one state (vote count data with small precincts blurred, corresponding exit poll data and sample sizes)? (Ron and I had to estimate the sample sizes from a sub-sample available at the Roper institute - with conservative assumptions.)

Why did Mitofsky present an entirely bogus analysis (the ESI analysis that is mathematical nonsense), and then not present ANY standard customary exit poll analysis accepted by statisticians for generations?

Farhad asks "Why didn't anyone protest the large exit poll discrepancy in the Clinton/Bush I race?"

Because NOT ENOUGH Votes were switched in the Clinton/Bush I election to CHANGE THE OUTCOME.

The Question to Ask Is: Why does anyone imagine that votes are counted accurately when the election industry is the only industry where no independent audits are performed to prevent insider manipulation?