EKDIDONAI

The following analyses attempt to detect any irregularities in the 2004 presidential election. The method of analysis was inspired by the work of Kathy Dopp at http://uscountvotes.org. Sources are given on the Summary page of each spreadsheet. Analyses of more states will be uploaded in the coming days.

2000
State	Bias	Partisanship	Adjustment
FL	10.73%	87.56%	Gore wins FL by 4.53%
2004
State	Bias	Partisanship	Adjustment
AL	Voter registration by party not available
CA	4.62%	78.46%	No change
FL	22.64%	84.81%	Kerry wins FL by 3.93%
GA	Voter registration by party not available
IA	2.90%	61.24%	No change
OH	-67.80%	31.67%	No change
NC	67.89%	83.16%	Kerry wins NC by 14.08%
NH	-38.20%	61.72%	Bush wins NH by 10.49%
NM	Voter registration by party not available
NV	5.61%	82.63%	No change
NY	13.22%	72.31%	No change
PA	10.14%	89.25%	No change
TN	Voter registration by party not available
TX	Voter registration by party not available
WI	Voter registration by party not available

Bias: The difference between %Chg Rep and %Chg Dem. Positive bias represents bias favoring the Republican candidate; negative bias represents bias favoring the Democratic candidate.
%Chg Rep & %Chg Dem: The difference between the percentage of votes each candidate received and the percentage of votes each candidate 'should' have received based upon (a) percentage of registered Reps/Dems in the county, (b) number of registered voters in the county, and (c) turnout percentage.
ES&S: Until 1995, the Chairman of ES&S (Election Systems & Software, Inc.) was Charles Hagel, now Republican Sen. Charles Hagel of Nebraska. He won by a surprising landslide in 1996, under suspicious circumstances considering that his company made all the voting machines used in the election.

Partisanship: The percentage of voters in the state who are registered as either Republicans or Democrats. The usefulness of this method of analysis is directly proportional to the partisanship of a state (e.g. in the case of Ohio, this analysis seems to me quite meaningless).