If you're tired of relying on DU for your coverage of possible voting fraud or errors, go here:

...Although at first it seems suspicious that counties with a large majority of registered Demokrats would vote for a Republikan in an election that was 90% along party lines, the most dramatic discrepancies turn out to appear in small counties, and they could easily be explained by obsolete data on party affiliation or other factors... That's why North KKKarolina and MiSSiSSippi voted for Bu$h while Massachusetts and Illinois voted for Kerry.

The best analysis is MIM's: rural crackers will vote Republikan; exiles from the Frost Belt will vote Demokratic...

mim3 for MIM replies: The comrade is correct...

I hereby completely distance my coverage of this issue from that by MIM.

For a categorized listing containing thousands of possible fraud and other voting problems, see this.

And, from "My experience as an Election Judge in Baltimore County on November 2, 2004":

I did, however, observe a vulnerability that I do not think would exist with non-DRE voting. It turned out that the new judge, Terry, was the security manager for the church where our election was held. He carried a large keyring to all the doors in the building. He was also in the same political party as chief judge Marie and her husband. One of the reasons why we have election judges from both major parties at each station at the polling center is to provide checks and balances. The night before the election, there was an imbalance. Two judges from the same party had set up the machines alone, and that night, someone from the same party had access to the room where the machines were left unguarded. Why is that a problem? The Diebold Accuvote TS machines were shown to be highly vulnerable to tampering. With physical access to the machines, for example, one could change a few bytes in the ballot definition file and votes for the two major Presidential candidates would be swapped. In that case, none of the procedures we had in place could detect that votes were tallied for the wrong candidates...

At 8:00 p.m., we closed the polls and locked the outside doors. This time we did not have to call security because Terry had the keys. Every hour we had counted the number of people who had voted and posted the turnout on the door of the polling place. When we closed the doors, there had been 725 digital ballots cast, and the chief judges decided not to modem in the results because it would be too much of a hassle. Instead, when they left the precinct later that night, they drove the memory cards with the totals to the board of elections office. I stared at the five machines. Inside them were the little memory cards, not unlike the one in my digital camera at home, with 725 votes stored on them. One by one, we removed the memory cards from the machines. I held them in my hand as chief judge Marie was ready to load them into one of the machines that we designated as the accumulator. How fragile. All of the votes from the entire precinct in my hand. Substituting those cards with five identical looking cards, one could replace all of the ballots that were cast with bogus ones. Surely nobody in Maryland would try something like that. The outcome here was certain before the election. However, what about states like Ohio and New Mexico? 725 paper ballots would be much harder to swap than 5 small memory cards. In larger precincts, the cards could hold thousands of ballots, but they would be the same size...

From "12,000 votes uncounted in Gaston":

GASTONIA - About 12,000 votes cast in Gaston County have not yet been counted, elections director Sandra Page said Tuesday.

Page said most early and absentee votes were not included in the county's unofficial election results because of a procedural error.

The inclusion of the votes in the county's results, expected Tuesday afternoon, could change the outcome of several local and statewide races.

Page emphasized that the votes are still in the computer system. She said officials failed to release the votes from the machine on which they were stored into the database where votes were tallied...

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's category on eVoting is here. Their roundup on possible fraud or errors is here.

Here's another roundup of voting reports.

This page discusses the exit polls and says: "A statistical analysis of exit polling conducted for RAW STORY by a former MIT mathematics professor has found the odds of Bush making an average gain of 4.15 percent among all 16 states included in the media's 4 p.m. exit polling is 1 in 50,000, or .002 percent."

David Corn offers the overview "A Stolen Election?".

From Nov. 3, PC World's "More E-Voting Problems Reported" describes several reported problems.

Right out of the swamps comes this collection of links and this one.