2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parent article: 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

After the 2004 U.S. presidential election there were allegations of data irregularities and systematic flaws which may have affected the outcome of both the presidential and local elections. Allegations range from significant exit poll and other data irregularities potentially characteristic of fraud, to complaints voting was not conducted equally for all citizens, for example, uneven voting machine distribution which might lead to long voting lines and disenfranchisement.

Contents

Exit polls have been used in other countries to attempt to check for election fraud. For example, in the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 exit polls showed 59 percent in favor of the recall, while the official tally showed only 42 percent in favor. [1] This discrepancy of 17 percent is larger than claimed for the 2004 US election. International observers nonetheless endorsed the Venezuelan result. [2] The "parallel vote tabulation" [3] is also expected to be a key factor in resolving problems with the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004 in which the US and other nations are alleging serious election fraud.

Because final published exit polls in America are matched to vote counts, they cannot be used to determine election fraud. However, in the 2004 election, pre-matched exit polls were leaked onto the internet. The exit poll results of one major consortium of news organizations, the National Election Pool ("NEP"), were based on interviews with voters in 49 states (omitting Oregon because its system of voting by mail eliminated the traditional polling place). The NEP results available during the day on Election Day showed Kerry leading Bush. These discrepancies led to charges that the exit polls were more accurate than the official counts, for various reasons. The co-director of NEP, Warren Mitofsky, said he suspected that the difference arose because "the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters." [4]. Other academic analysts conclude that such explanations are poorly supported. It is also possible that women are either more likely to participate in a poll, or more likely to vote early. In the early polls women represented 58% of the sampled voters, but by poll closing only represented 52% of the voters as reported by local governments, so women were likely oversampled in the early polling. The 52% figure is consistent with historical turnout numbers. Blacks may also have been undersampled, since black turnout increased 25%, much greater than the increase in turnout by other groups.

Reliability of exit polls as a predictor of election popular vote is discussed below. They are said to be consistently very accurate, often within fractions of a percentage point, across many elections and many countries, including the USA.

  1. The same US online encyclopedia cited above ([5]) states that
    "Exit - machines (like the Diebold Accuvote) or other software or modem-mediated electronic systems (like those from ES&S) with no paper trail - used by approximately one third of voters, many in swing states. 80% of all US voters [emphasis in original article] use some kind of voting machine from one of these two companies."
  2. Dick Morris, a career pollster (Republican), states in the Hill News that the Election Night pattern of exit polls versus popular vote in six battleground states - Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa - was "virtually inconceivable":
    "Exit polls are almost never wrong ... So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible."
    (Speculative material alert: The article goes on to state that these differences demonstrate that the differences were due to "more than honest error". However it then proceeds directly to assumptive hypothesis as follows: "...To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent." Readers should note that this further hypothesis of pollster error is not in fact supported by a quoted source, nor is any explanation given to justify it, and is presently an unverified statement. The article has not in fact made any attempt to analyse or justify this assumption as to where the errors lay, but presumes the machine votes were correct and therefore the exit polls necessarily "bogus". However this does not cast doubt over the statement as to general accuracy of exit polls per se, which agrees with information from other sources. [6]
  3. Students at BYU have been conducting Utah exit polls (see "Navigation" links) since 1982. They write:
    "... [the] results are very precise; In the 2003 Salt Lake County mayoral race, the KBYU/Utah Colleges Exit Poll predicted 53.8 percent of the vote for Rocky Anderson and 46.2 percent for Frank Pignanelli. In the actual vote, Anderson carried 54 percent of the vote to Pignanelli’s 46 percent ... In the Utah presidential election, for example, they predicted Bush 70.8%, Kerry 26.5%. The actual was Bush 71.1%, Kerry 26.4%. Consistently accurate exit poll predictions from student volunteers, including in this presidential election, gives us good reason to presume valid data from the world’s most professional exit polling enterprise."
  4. In his Mystery Pollster blog, Mark Blumenthal compared the methodologies of the German and Utah Colleges exit polls with the NEP's, concluding that
    "... there are sound methodological reasons why the German and Utah exit polls typically obtain more accurate results: They do more interviews, attain better coverage and better response rates and use arguably better trained interviewers." [emphasis in original]


Voting locations that used electronic or other types of voting machines that did not issue a paper receipt or offer auditability correlate geographically with areas that had discrepancies in Bush's favor between exit poll numbers and actual results. Exit polling data in these areas show significantly higher support for Kerry than actual results (potentially outside the margin of error). From a statistical perspective, this may be indicative of vote rigging, because the likelihood of this happening by chance is extremely low. A study of 16 states by a former MIT mathematics professor places the likelihood at 1 in 50,000. [7]

Image:2004_us_discrepancy_12_22.jpg

Supporting the same conclusions of the maps above, here are bar graphs indicating the differentials between Exit Polls and Machine Tallies for nine e-voting and paper ballot states. The discrepancies appear to affect the e-voting states to a significantly greater degree than they affect the Paper Ballot states.

Source and background discussion are listed here: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000893.htm

Source data and analysis: http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm http://ustogether.org/election04/mitteldorf/Liddle.htm

Corroborating data and analysis for download: Steve Freeman research, ZIP format

Image:Exit poll small.jpg

See http://www.ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm, http://ustogether.org/election04/mitteldorf/Liddle.htm, and http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm.

The Florida plots on ustogether.org are compiled from the following sources amongst others:

  • Official Florida votes by county: [8]
  • Registered Voter Affiliation by County: [9]
  • Election machines in use by county: [10]
  • Summary table used in analysis: [11]

Criticisms of data:

  1. Minor differences are noted in the data versus the summary table, for example Alachua County is officially reported to have 47,762 REP // 62,504 DEM, where as in the summary table the figures are 47,615 REP // 62,348 DEM (equivalent to -0.3% REP // -0.25% DEM)
  2. Expected Votes are calculated on the basis of Registered Voters and not native exit polls (ie unfixed to match official voting). (Native poll data has not in general been released by NOP). Registration may differ from voting across party lines.

The following tables compare final exit poll data with penultimate exit poll data, note the large swing of support towards Bush, with Kerry losing votes, which is impossible if votes are only being added. National Election Pool, the consortium which conducts exit polls, has stated that the early data was inaccurate due to regulations preventing pollsters from approaching voters, legal barriers, and their belief that Democrats are more willing to answer exit polls. The consortium dismissed the possibility that their early exit poll was accurate and that vote counts were wrong, due to the reasons they provided. The early exit poll data was not meant to be released to the public. The data that was meant to be released to the public was intended to be weighted by the actual vote count. Exit polling companies claim this is standard procedure. Critics argue exit poll data should only ever be weighted by population samples to balance out any differences in sampling, and never made to match final results, and have requested access to the raw data.

At least one academic analysis of the exit polls which attempts to be rigorous, acts as a second source that unaltered data was released on CNN until approximately 1.30 am, as cited above:

"The data I use for this analysis was available apparently only because a computer glitch allowed apparently "uncalibrated" data (not yet "corrected" to conform to announced vote tallies) to remain on the CNN website until approximately 1:30 AM election night.5 At that time, CNN substituted data "corrected" to conform to reported tallies. I have attempted to obtain the raw exit poll data from AP, Edison Media Research, Mitofsky International, and the NY Times, but have as yet received no response 6" ([12])

It is also said that:

"...the raw data is under the control of the organizations -- ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the Associated Press – that collectively own it. In past years they have deposited the raw data at the archives of the Roper Center [AKA Roper Centre for Public Opinion Research], where it is available for analysis to the general public ..."

Secondary support of the claim that from around 1.30 am on election day, publicised numbers were covertly adjusted or replaced to match those expected or reported, comes from Alan Freeman, cited below, as well as being implied by Caltech/MIT's own statement that they had to estimate the exit poll responses due to lack of genuine raw data.

CNN screenshot #1:

12.21 am, 1963 respondents so far

Total vote: Male 47%, Female 53% of which:

  Male - Bush   47% x 49% x 1963    452
  Male - Kerry   47% x 51% x 1963    471
  Female - Bush   53% x 47% x 1963    489
  Female - Kerry   53% x 53% x 1963    551
  TOTAL - Bush       941
  TOTAL - Kerry       1022
(rounding: estimates of voters in each category accurate within +/- 10)

CNN screenshot #2:

1.41 am, 2020 respondents so far (57 more than above)

Total vote: Male 47%, Female 53% of which:

  Male - Bush   47% x 52% x 2020    499
  Male - Kerry   47% x 47% x 2020    451
  Female - Bush   53% x 50% x 2020    535
  Female - Kerry   53% x 50% x 2020    535
  TOTAL - Bush       1034
  TOTAL - Kerry       986
(rounding: estimates of voters in each category accurate within +/- 10)

The addition of an extra 57 voters at this station was therefore reported as +93 votes for Bush by AP and CNN at least, and voters monitoring the exit polls were told authoritatively that Bush had now taken a lead from Kerry.

Note that the counts for Kerry under Male voters changed in a negative direction after additional voters were included. The net subtraction of 20 votes from the Kerry total after adding new voters seems to reflect an adjustment process.

Other sources have provided explanations for these discrepancies. See for example the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project analysis which can be found [13]:

Caltech/MIT state that in their view there is no significant exit poll difference, and that in summary, these discrepancies are "not new or unique," but are within the expected margin of error.

Others state that the Caltech paper, which is unsigned and lacks statistical rigor, is more of the nature of a position paper than an academic report, and that by its own admission it analyzes data already known to be flawed and compromised.

One such study challenging their conclusion is an analysis which argues that the MIT-Caltech study contains several "serious methodological problems", including:

"[...] the CalTech/MIT report used the "corrected" exit poll data now available online at CNN.com [...]. 'They are NOT [the] unweighted, end-of-day poll results that have been the object of all the speculation, the ones that showed Kerry doing better in most states than he did in the actual count"
It also states that Caltech/MIT appear to have analysed and compared the corrected exit poll figures (not the raw ones), which CNN's website showed had been weighted to agree with official results, and that "the CalTech/MIT researchers probably grabbed results for [Rhode Island, Oklahoma and New York] before NEP got around to weighting them to match actual results"
The analysis concludes that Caltech/MIT were probably comparing exit data which was adjusted to fit with official figures, against the same official figures ... "Thus, the charts in the CalTech/MIT report don’t really tell us much. They are essentially analyzing rounding error ... More important, as noted here before, the analysis ... could be done with far more precision and power using the raw exit poll data. The exit polls track type of voting equipment down to the precinct level ... [so] this would be a very easy theory to 'debunk'. Unfortunately, NEP officials are so far reticent to discuss their data."

A further analysis of the reliability of the Caltech report together with sourced links for verifiability can be found here. It highlights the following concerns with the Caltech report:

  1. Caltech used questionable source data adjusted ex-post facto (by their own statement they took evening data; ex post facto adjustments were noted (see above) as early as 1.30 am). A footnote states "The exit poll data were taken from the cnn.com web site ... because the web site does not report the bottom line candidate percentages directly, we had to calculate them from the demographic breakdowns. In this case, we estimated the Bush percentage of votes in the exit polls using the gender breakdown."
  2. It alleges that Caltech/MIT also used "flawed" 2000 data.
  3. The Caltech/MIT paper is not in fact a scientifically drafted analysis, it is more a "position paper", and is described as "anything but systematic". There are few substantiated attempts to analyse the matter as a formal statistical study, it contains many numbers but few calculations and a lot of reliance on graphs whose assumptions, weaknesses or significance are not carefully analysed.
  4. The heads of the Voter Technology Project (VTP) have a variety of documented strong political ties to right wing thinktanks, voting machine companies and their owners, and the like, including the Hoover Institution (which has very strong links to the Bush administration), "right-wing evangelical Christian and Republican circles" and "the highly secretive far-Right Council for National Policy", and the Urosevich brothers referred to above under Diebold and ES&S.
  5. They have already been implicated in scientific fraud elsewhere.
  6. The paper is unsigned, unlike other Caltech papers, which is not in accordance with any usual professional scientific standard.
  7. Behind the graphs, the paper is in fact extremely thin on genuine analytic value, attention to data issues, self-questioning, and the like, which a stats paper should be. (By contrast the paper by Dr Freeman is strong on these areas).
  8. The methodology is believed flawed by some other statistical and analytical professionals.
  9. The arguments in this unsigned paper conflict with core positions they've taken before on electronic voting, but no strong explanation or justification is given. "I thought it odd that the November 11, 2004 Caltech/MIT [paper] would focus so narrowly on justifying the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual vote without ever mentioning that the openness to fraud of the electronic vote tabulation that they delineated in the July 2001 95-page report from the Caltech/MIT VTP entitled 'Voting: What Is, What Could Be'."
  10. The brief paper ends with what some describe as spin quotes, as opposed to formal academic or professional conclusions.

Some sources also draw a connection between influential figures in the Caltech/MIT Voter Technology Project, namely David Baltimore and Howard Ahmanson, Jr, and the unsigned unprofessional rebuttal of exit poll suspicions. These people note that Baltimore has been the subject of an investigation by a congressional enquiry into scientific fraud [14], and the Ahmanson family are involved in hard right politics and the ownership and funding of major voting machine companies, and has made large donations to Caltech. Whilst the latter is true, Baltimore was in fact cleared of any charges of data falsification. summary of story

An addendum [15] to the report has been published, aiming to clarify the purpose of the original report and incorporate uncorrected data in the analysis. It found that there was no significant correlation between voting methods and exit poll discrepancies.

(Sidenote - The original Caltech report is no longer accessible on their website; an amended "version 2" can be found here)

University of Pennsylvania Professor Steven F. Freeman et.al. challenged the Edison/Mitofsky attempt to explain the exit poll discrepancy. [16] According to Freeman, Mitofsky/Edison's paper "fails to substantiate their hypothesis that the difference between their exit polls and official election results should be explained by problems with the exit polls". Original paper: "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy: Part I"

Freeman's paper has gone through several revisions since it was first released a week after election day. After considering several critiques of his paper on MysteryPollster and posting a response to Mark Blumenthal himself, Freeman adjusted several things, such as increasing the previously stated odds of Bush carrying the battleground states he did despite exit poll discrepancies from 250,000,000:1 (against) to 664,000:1 (against). This less-sensational number is still well outside a 95% confidence interval. However, some have critiqued that the overall "red shift", or states with a positive difference towards Bush in the discrepancy between exit polls and actual vote counts, can be found in almost all states in addition to the battleground states.

In addition, it has been contended that Freeman's paper does not sufficiently take into account "design effects" that may alter the margin of error. Assuming a simple random sample, the margin of error (MOE) can be calculated as normal, however exit polls use clustered sampling, as political affiliation is geographically grouped together. In other words, if 50 blue and 50 red marbles are put in a jar and shaken repeatedly, the first marble selected's probability of being red or blue will be equal. This is a simple random sample. However, if 50 blue marbles are put in a jar, then 50 red marbles are placed on top of the blue marbles without mixing the jar, the odds that a blue marble is selected from the top is clearly less, as the reds and blues are grouped together. This is a clustered sample. Using clustered samples raises the margin of error (in this case, ±3% for national exit polls, ±4% for state exit polls) somewhere between 30% and 50-80% (this number has been debated upon). Accounting for clustered sampling would raise the margin of error to the point where several states analyzed in Freeman's paper would no longer be outside the margin of error, and thus not statistically significant. However, critics have pointed out that such inaccuracy (MOE of ±5-7%) would render exit polls completely useless in practical applications, as given a tie, a 14-point swing to either candidate is possible. They point to the fact that networks would not pay millions of dollars for such meaningless data. This expanded MOE is also directly contradictory to the explicitly stated MOE of 4% displayed on Mitofsky's own website [17]. In addition, while an increase in MOE would render "controversial" states' exit polls within the margin of error, it does not account for the fact that in nearly all battleground states (and a significant majority of all polled states), the exit polls consistently favor Kerry over the actual vote counts (which favor Bush). While these states' exit polls exhibiting significant discrepancies might be within an expanded margin of error, they are, however, consistently in the same direction of error.

Rick Brady provides a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of Dr. Freeman's paper. Mystery Pollster reviewed Brady's work and concluded: "Brady's paper is a must read for those still genuinely weighing the arguments on the exit poll controversy."[18]

Data sets of the Exit Polls and Official Results, including DR. Freeman's data, are published online.

Dec. 3 - The William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI) announced that NBC said that it studied the discrepancy between exit poll figures for Latino votes from the WCVI and NEP (Edison/Mitofsky), and now believes WCVI's figures were more accurate and that NEP under-represented urban areas (leaning Democratic) and over-represented non-urban areas (leaning Republican). WCVI claimed that NBC has therefore adjusted its figures and believes that in fact Kerry had 58% not 53% of the popular Latino vote and Bush has 40% and not 44% as previously stated. NBC's estimate for Hispanic support in Bush's home state of Texas was also revised, turning a reported 18-point lead for Bush into a 2-point win for Kerry among Hispanics, a "remarkable" 20-point turnaround from figures reported on election night.

"Since the Election Day numbers came out, a controversy has existed between WCVI and exit poll officials. Competing exit polls showed a significant gap in support among Latinos for President Bush and Senator Kerry ... NBC has set an example for network poll integrity by taking a giant step away from the Edison International/Mitofsky election results, and toward WCVI's findings. For example, today NBC stated that 70% of its respondents came from non-urban areas and 30% from urban areas, while acknowledging that 50% of Latino voters come from urban areas. This admission could explain the difference in their results and WCVI's. They under-represented Latino urban voters (who are more likely to vote democratic) and over-represented Latino non-urban votes (who are more likely to vote republican). We hope the other networks follow suit with more adjustments in their findings."

However NBC's election coverage manager Ana Maria Arumi reportedly does not endorse the WCVI poll.

Early commentary following the election highlighted Bush's apparent large gains among Hispanics, but most of these gains now seem to have evaporated [19]. Of the 20-point turnaround mentioned above, 9 points was caused by a tabulation error reported Nov. 29, and the rest was apparently due to sampling variation.

Dec. 3 - John Conyers, ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Warren Mitofsky requesting the raw NEP exit poll data for independent analysis. [20]

"...the only way to restore complete legitimacy on this election is to have an independent firm conduct a detailed analysis of the data, including the raw data taken at the polls early in the day. ... I would also like to request your attendance at a forum ...the Judiciary Committee will be holding to discuss any issues and concerns regarding the numerous voting irregularities that have been reported in Ohio ... any insight or concerns that you may have on this issue will be greatly appreciated."

Dec. 7 - Mitofsky declines the "invitation" citing he was "not available to attend". He also added that since exit poll information was "proprietary information gathered and held for those news organizations", he was also "not at liberty" to release them. [21]

Dec. 8 - Forum

Link House Judiciary Forum: What went wrong in Ohio

Opening statement:

"In this country, we gather facts before we reach conclusions, and we ask questions before we get the answers ... I very much want John Kerry to be the next President of the United States. But today I have invited and we are joined by David Cobb, the Green Party candidate for President. I assume John Kerry was not his choice for President."
"So this is not about John Kerry, this is about the voters. There were voters who stood in ten hour lines to exercise their most basic and fundamental civic right. There were voters who worked for days to provide transportation to the polls for the elderly and the poor and to provide assistance to language minority. As hard as voters worked for the vote, we need to work just as hard to make sure every single vote counts. In our country, we do not say every vote counts if it would make a difference in the margin between a winning and losing candidate. We do not say every vote counts unless the electoral college has already met. We do not say every vote counts unless Congress has already certified the electoral votes. We do not say every vote counts unless the new President has been inaugurated. We just say: every vote counts."
The opening address also recapped questions to which the answer is not known. It commented on the fact that certain people who could have been of help did not attend, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, that many wrote in, that voters could write (if concerned) to request open hearings, and warned that "Not everyone who disbelieves or seeks to disprove allegations of voting irregularities is our opponent. Many share our objective of getting to the truth and we should welcome their criticism and scrutiny."

Written witness testimony currently available on House website:

  1. Professor Robert Fitrakis, Editor, The Free Press - submitted a long statement summarising, listing and categorizing voting irregularities in Ohio. [22]
  2. Judith A. Browne, Acting Co-Director, Advancement Project - submitted a statement reviewing voter suppression issues, including lack of controls over challenges, postal issues and racial discrimination, and evidence that the Republican National Committee participated and assisted in Ohio vote suppression in violation of the Consent Decree. [23]
  3. Melanie L. Campbell, Executive Director and CEO, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Inc. - 2004 was a mirror image of 2000, measures that were intended to prevent this (including HAVA) were flawed and merely a "feel good" step, and what happened was at heart, "confusion", pure and simple. [24]

Ranking Member Coyers "plans to ask for the [raw exit poll] information within a week", but "because Republicans control Congress, Conyers will likely only be able to call attention to the issue." The information Conyers wants "typically isn't made public". It is information which is "only supposed to be used to help reporters and editors plan stories." [25]

  • (2004.12.03)  To Mitofsky, requesting raw data for election exit polls (pdf)
    • (2004.12.07)  From Mitofsky, denying request (pdf)
      • (2004.12.14)  Follow up letter to Mitofsky (pdf)
  • (2004.12.21)  To major networks and media, requesting exit poll data, follow-up (story) (pdf)
  • (2005.01.20)  To Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky Intl. and Larry Rosin of Edison Media, reiterating request for raw data for election exit polls (pdf)

On February 4, 2005, USCountVotes.org released a report (pdf) responding to Edison/Mitofsky's "Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 (pdf)". The report states:

"On January 19, 2005, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International released a 77-page report on their (p. 3) “analysis of the performance of the exit polls” in the 2004 election. The Edison/Mitofsky report acknowledges widespread discrepancies between their exit polls and official counts, and admits that the differences were far greater than can be explained by sampling error. The report repeats the assertion (p. 3) that this disparity was “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”, but no evidence is offered to support this conclusion. In fact, data newly released in the report suggests that Bush supporters might have been overrepresented in the exit polls, widening the disparity to be explained. The report gives no consideration to alternative explanations involving election irregularities."

This is reiterated in the summary:

"The Edison/Mitofsky report fails to substantiate their hypothesis that the difference between their exit polls and official election results should be explained by problems with the exit polls. They assert without supporting evidence that (p. 4), "Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters." In fact, data included within the report suggest that the opposite might be true."

Which recommends:

"The Edison/Mitofsky report states (p.12), "We need to do more investigation into the causes of the statistical skew in the exit poll data for the general election." USCountVotes agrees, and we suggest that investigation extend to the official vote count tallies. In this context, USCountVotes affirms our mission to create and analyze a database containing precinct-level election results for the entire United States in order to do a thorough mathematical analysis of the 2004 election results."

"The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts -- nearly half of those polled -- they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again -- against all odds -- the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush's favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered 27, in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of 1 in a billion." [26]


(Note: the presence of any link above involving election irregularities is for those seeking further information on those irregularities in a general sense. It is not an opinion on this specific election.)

2004 United States Presidential Election Electoral map, 2004 election
Candidates: George W. Bush • John Kerry • Ralph Nader • (full list)

General articles: Election timeline • Detailed results • Democratic primaries • Republican Convention • Democratic Convention • Effects in Canada
Controversies: Controversy and irregularities (timeline) • Exit polling inconsistancies • Vote suppression • Voting machines • Moss v. Bush • Florida • Ohio • Kerry military service • Bush military service
Local results: Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Other 2004 elections: House • Senate • Gubernatorial
2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
Exit polls • Vote suppression • Voting machines • Recounts and legal challenges • Timeline • Florida • Ohio • Moss v. Bush
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy%2C_exit_polls_c674.html"
Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.