While there's been a lot of talk of problems with not having paper trails, computer fraud is uncovered most of the time without paper trails. As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create  a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right  through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud. With the votergate 2004 it's a numbers game just like it is with corporate accounting, even easier. All you're talking about is one number-- total votes for each candidate.

 There's a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something that has already happened is high as compared to predictive polls which have high margins of error. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4 percent as we see with predictive polls,  but rather a much more reliable  plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because those are based on asking people who already voted.   I would even say that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio, which it was, then these results should be practically "bullet proof."

COMMENT: I HAVE USED STATISTICAL SAMPLING FREQUENTLY IN MY FORENSIC WORK

It is important that people know how accurate random sampling of historical events can be in order for them to understand how unlikely it is that the exit polls were wrong.  So if you want to fight the battle correctly, you must get more statisticians and forensic accountants involved as well as the lawyers.  These statisticians can show with great credibility the probability of manipulation within the computer programs used for counting the ballots.  They do this kind of work all the time to uncover fraud based upon computer manipulation in commercial and corporate activities.  And these types of expert analyses are admissible in a court of law.........

The post election reports show that Ron Paul did not get any votes in a precinct where exit polls show that he did.  Zogby did a show for us at Nova M Radio and he is now on XM.  He and I have had many discussions about the statistical anomalies in the 2000 and 2004 exit polls.  Zogby and I are experts in the field of statistical sampling.  Zogby however is not an expert in forensic accounting.
 
Computer hackers can infiltrate any computer system from remote locations all over the world.  They are hacking into all the credit card companies and retail online sites.  That is why identity theft is so rampant.  Imagine how simple it would be for Diebold and the other voter machine companies to change the results.  They service the equipment.  It would be easy for anyone to program the total votes to skew in favor of one candidate.  And they can do it without changing the votes for the one they want to lose.  Keeping the loser at the number that the exit polls show gives a false impression that the winner did not get any help.  All they have to do is shift some of the results from the low % candidates to the winner to reconcile with the total vote.  Perhaps that is why Ron Paul did not show up in the results even though the exit polls had him getting some votes in one precinct.

The old "ponzi scheme" approach works for elections in that you transfer numbers from one place to another without changing the total.  I uncovered a major fraud by a money manager by the name of Jay Goldinger who was managing $40M for one of my clients.  When I did an onsite audit using statistical sampling I found out that he was manipulating his customer accounts on a rotating basis to send out results that made his clients happy.  He would then move those amounts to another account when necessary, but the total amount of money under his management was correct. 

The next question I ask in my work is who benefits?  That's pretty easy to answer in this Presidential election.  I can easily eliminate the Clintons.  The real benefactors for this 'ponzi" job is corporate owned media.  Despite the bashing of Hillary in the NH primary, the exit polls belie the so-called sympathy factor.  Even the gal who raised the question to Hillary which resulted in her emotional response claimed she did not vote for her.  The internal polling for both Clinton and Obama did show that Obama would win by a significant margin.  Had Obama won the NH primary, the media horse race would probably have ended very soon.  The result being that the advertising and ratings in all the primary states would go down significantly.

I can say with a high confidence level that the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual results were not an anomaly.  The Democrats especially should want to follow-up on this ASAP.  The idea that the so-called Bradley affect created a racial bias against Obama is nonsense. That is a lie that is meant to divide the Dems on gender and race.  I am reminded of a movie line in The Exorcist when the old priest advises his younger assistant about the devil.  The old Priest Merrin says to Karras his assistant:

"We may ask what is relevant, but anything beyond that is
dangerous. He is a liar, the demon is a liar. He will lie to
confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack
us. The attack is psychological , Damien. And powerful. So don't
listen, remember that, do not listen."

That is my perception of the corporate media.  They are liars who will mix truth with lies to confuse us.  And as Merrin said "do not listen."