Over in the comments section of my latest post on the Ohio election, Brad Friedman takes exception to my suggestion that he's in the foil hat brigade (remember, shiny side out!). Boy, make one little accusation that someone is a paranoid psychotic and he starts acting, well, all paranoid and psychotic. Go figure.
As for the substance of his allegation about vote fraud in this year's Ohio elections, he still doesn't offer up any evidence for such claims other than the well-known potential problems with various electronic voting systems. But as my analysis shows, there's no evidence that the ballot measures in question did worse in those counties with such voting systems. In fact, most of the measures actually did a bit better in those counties. So if there was fraud, exactly how and where did it occur?
Furthermore, the whole fraud allegation rests on the idea that the Columbus Dispatch mail poll provides an accurate baseline by which to measure the election results. Since the Dispatch poll showed the measures winning handily, then the actual election results must be flawed. Going by that example, Brad, I've got an even bigger scandal for you to pursue. No trivial state referenda here, but the whole enchilada--the presidency of the United States. A respected survey, one that had successfully predicted every election for twenty years, called the election for the challenger in a landslide. But when the "actual" returns were counted, the incumbent "won" with the largest landslide in history.
Yes, Brad, I suggest your time would be better spent investigating how Franklin Roosevelt stole the 1936 election from Alf Landon. The truth is out there!