Regardless of one's personal beliefs, emotions or suspicions, the question of whether there was election-associated fraud in Ohio in 2004, or in any situation of this kind, rests on the accurate interpretation of data. The science of statistics never enables conclusive, or 100% certainty, about any event. It can show, however, that a specific event, supported by data underlain by specific assumptions, is likely, or even highly likely. Thus, the interpretation of Kennedy vs Manjoo contretemps is one, ultimately, that rests on, and requires, the knowledge of statistical analysis.

In this respect, I don't think that Manjoo has not responded to the issues raised by Kennedy regarding significant statistical (or data-related) anomalies in Ohio. While Manjoo is certainly not illogical, he doesn't appear to grasp fully the nature of statistical hypothesis testing. While Kennedy may not either, he nonetheless raises issues which Manjoo has failed to rebut statistically, technically and, thus, substantively.

It seems that the argument between Kennedy and Manjoo is mostly about statistics, especially the statistics in the DNC report. For example, the survey in the DNC report used approximately 1000 respondants. With a measure of 2 or 3% described as not-voting due to long waits -- with a standard statistical error of +/-3% -- the survey in the DNC report is hardly the final answer.

Having read Manjoo's original article (but not Kennedy's) and each writer's rebuttal of the other, I'm left a bit confused about the actual facts. What IS clear is that each is being a bit pedantic in taking the other to task.

Manjoo, particularly, employs this tactic. In pointing out that Kennedy's claim that "more than 174,000 voters showed up to vote on Election Day [and] were forced to leave without casting a ballot" is inaccurate because 48,000 didn't actually go to the polls because of rumors of crowds, Manjoo (intentionally?) misses the point. Who cares if they actually showed up and didn't vote. The bottom line is they didn't vote and the poll indicates that, in their mind at least, it had something to do with the situation at the polls.

Manjoo further places his argument on shakey ground by using the election results of 2000 as some sort of baseline for regular elections. Let us not forget that the 2000 election has been under some suspicion too. While Ohio may not be specifically raised in that context, relying on election results starring the same basic cast of characters to debunk Kennedy makes a weak argument.

I'm not saying Manjoo is wrong and Kennedy is right. I think they and others have made the point that we all agree there was a problem. Did it cost Kerry the election? I don't know. I do think, however, that the information Kennedy presents deserves to be considered, and if we're to debate Kennedy's findings, we should have more to go on than semantics and references to other questionable elections.

It's pretty interesting that opinion mostly seems strongly divided between those who 100% believe that the truth of 2004 was unethical election tactics vs. those who also strongly believe the opposite(with perhaps quite a bit more people on the side of the election not having been rigged.) Being a person myself who believes the truth lies in the statistics and multiple reports of unethical election tactics, I've found it hard over the past few years to understand why what is so out-in-the-open & obvious to me would be so obscured to others who want to believe Kerry just had a bad run but it was a fair fight. Eventually the theory I came up with is that it's all based on emotions and fear. It's a very scary, fearful idea to think that perhaps a free country that we believe in and are so proud of might be just as corrupt and controlled as a 3rd world dictatorship. How does that change your beliefs, actions, ethics, and values to consider that possibility? Wouldn't that mean some personal responsibility would fall back upon all of us "freedom-loving" people if we admitted to ourselves that maybe our freedom has been taken from us? Wouldn't we have to act... to get out of our comfort zone as placid consumers? Can we back all our talks of good citizenship and responsible ethics with real action? What would we give of ourselves if we had to fight for freedom here on our own soil?

So my theory is that the one absolute truth out of this debate is that a whole lot of people don't want to know if the election was tampered with or their presidental decision was made for them. To find out the truth would turn the world that they think they know upside down...and then what?

The cocktail of unaccountable voting machines used in the '04 election have clearly made it difficult to prove fraud. However, they've also made it impossible to prove legitimacy. There's no useful capacity for "recounting" "votes." The machines are a black box, essentially invalidating the entire exercise.

Really, those tacitly mentioning Bush's "legitimate victory" are as ideological as those making tacit mention of his "fascist reinstallation." There's just no proof either way, and both groups would do well to come up with some more neutral language to that effect.

Even if you want to give Bush & his people the benefit of assumed innocence in the absence of proven guilt, you should color your view with some awareness of who you are dealing with. It's been shown beyond any doubt that the Bush cabal used the GOP power structure to steal the presidency in 2000. These are serial election fraudsters we're dealing with, but some insist on giving them the full benefit of the doubt, absent proof? Sorry, that's idealism way beyond the pale.

A useful example: How ridiculous do people sound when they start a premise based on OJ Simpson's innocence? OJ didn't even have any prior murders on his rap sheet! (OJ Simpson : Bush :: "I'll find the real killer" : "I have a clear mandate")

I agree with RFK Jr. that proving the details of 04's electoral fraud would help put us on the path of electoral reform in that it would highlight the policy details we need to mandate.

public campaign funding, instant run-off, and voter-verified paper-trail voting systems.

why don't we hear anything about chuck hagel's vote thefts? his was a stunning upset--the first GOP senator for nebraska in 24 years--and he happened to be chairing the company that made the voting machines 85% of his votes were cast on (ES&S). Suspicious? Sure. But as long as they cover their tracks, Farhad says, "Lay off. He clearly won fairly."