On the fallacy of point #1: http://hammond.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/23/the-case-of-the-mystery-voters-in-irans-election/.

Point #2 is also a fallacy. Al Gore didn't win his home state when he ran for President. And Ahmadinejad speaks Azeri and has appeal with that ethnic group.

For Point #4, see Point #3. Points # 5 and 6 require no response.

Point # 7, the Mousavi campaign forced the I.M.'s hand by declaring himself the clear winner before the polls were even closed -- very "suspicious".

As an Iranian, I'd like to thank you. But there are two mistakes in this article:

First, "A break with polls". It would be better if you would choose "unclear/Yes" as the response. In the last presidential election, Ahmadinejad was elected in the second round as his votes was less than 50 percent of the voters. Furthermore, when people of Iran (and probably anywhere else in the world) seek change they participate more in an election and it is really unclear why (unbelievably) 85 precent of eligible Iranians have voted (declared to vote) to Ahmadinejad to keep him in power.

Second, "Fishy Digits". The answer surely is "Yes". According to a newly published information by the authorities, there were many ballot boxes with exactly 300, 400 and 500 votes in them, which means people have gone to these ballot boxes in groups of hunderd people!

Let me give you another hint to the fraud in this election. A few days before the election, the authorities announced that 46 million Iranians are eligible to vote and 57 million ballot papers are published and a few other millions without serial numbers. Yet on the election day, there were hundreds of reports from all over Iran that ballot boxes ran out of ballot papers. What do you think has happened to the extra ballot papers???

The answers of these questions may help us to find the answer of every single Iranian key question, "Where is my vote?"

You regretably severly understate the indicators of massive voting fraud in hte 2009 Iranian preesidential election.

Was there a break with the polls in Iran? It is difficult to measure because of the notorious unreliability of polling data in Iran (particularly that provided by IRIB). However, there is evidence that there were several breaks with the polling data. First, the Terror Free Tomorrow data (the 2-1 margin referenced by Newsweek) do NOT suggest that Ahmadinejad would garner 63% of the vote. It showed him with only 38% support, versus 27% undecided and 15% who refused to answer. Is it really credible that 100% of the undecided vote went his way? Second, the TFT poll was completed BEFORE the slate of candidates was officially approved and much of the polling was conducted before Mousavi had even applied to be a candidate. Other polls, including those published more closely to the election depart significantly from the final vote tally.

Were there fishy digits? You bet there were. The goverment of Iran has ADMITTED that over 50 cities reported greater than 100% participation in the election. That represents about one sixth of the 300 or so jurisdictions for which Iran tallied the votes. Moreover, there was surprisingly little difference in the margin of victory for Ahmadinejad based on geographic location. Provinces that have voted overwhelmingly agains Ahmadinejad in the past overwhelmingly voted for him this time around, giving him roughly the same level of support in nearly every province, a stark contrast to previous voting patterns in the country.

The biggest question is whether the vote was counted at all, or whether the same (or similar) organization that provided the IRIB pre-election polling data merely provided computerized data in a complete and total sham.

The Iranian people deserve better!

Who would have thought a fine upstanding country like Iran would fix an election?

Yes, where there is smoke there is fire=Democracy is a threat to theocracy. One reflects the human need for freedom and the other a determination of entrenced traditionalists who will protect their priviledged class in the name of God. Ironically, God, being just, will support the will of His children and liberty will prevail.

Where there is smoke there is fire---Democracy is a threat to Theocracy-One is fueled by the human need for freedom and the other by religious traditionalists determined to reatain entrenched power in the name of God

Let's do apply Newsweek's indicators to 2000 and 2004: Impossible Tallies - None reported, in fact voter turnout in 2000 was 51.3% and 2004 was 55.3% - shameful turnouts that would not be considered a quorum by most organizations. Logical Anomalies - None Reported, Dems did well in the cities and liberal states and GOP did well in rural and conservative states. A Break with Polls - No major differences with polls leading up to the elections - exit polling was not consistent. Reversals of Fortune - No big swings, country is still very evenly divided. Fishy Digits - Not enough info - but none reported. Late Comebacks - Again no data to support - the results were extremely close the whole time and even the Electoral College tallies (which should greatly amplify individual precinct tallies) were very close all along - Also the most contested states were in the east, which closed first. Hasty Verdicts - The only quick decisions were by the media - no official results were released for a looooong time.
So apparently, by j.n's and jlgab's desired measures the 2000 and 2004 elections were perfect examples of democracy - with the glaring exception of the voter turnout, which should embarrass the supposed leading nation of the free world.

OldGazer is correct in that the US can't (presumably) rig ballots due to the use of electronic ballots and banks of computers, but votes can and have been rigged by other methods. Don't make the US so special and immune to fraud.

Can we now apply many of these same questions to Minnesota (e.g. many districts had more votes than voters)?