I'm talking about How does the discrepancy between exit polls and results in recent US elections compare to pre-electronic machine margins? (And you should really read the original form.)
A widespread claim I'm seeing people make, amid studies that demonstrate critical flaws in voting systems used in the US during the past decade, is that some swing states have had alarming discrepancies between the exit polls and the results. In other words perhaps election outcomes have been changed by electronic vote manipulation.
I think the most obvious question to ask is "Before we used electronic voting machines, were the discrepancies between exit polls and results in swing states different?"
I don't even know where to begin looking for those stats, however, from over a decade ago before electronic voting was widespread
Currently at +8/-3 votes. Oddly no link was provided for the "widespread claim [...] amid studies that demonstrate critical flaws during the past decade".
As it turn out, the idea that exit polls can be used to catch fraud in the actual election is not taken seriously by most researchers, at least not when it applies to the US elections. Instead the usual assumption is that the exit polls are the ones suffering from a sampling bias, e.g. younger and/or more educated voters being more likely to complete exit polls.
I'm aware of only one non-peer-reviewed paper that tried to prove fraud by comparing exit polls with results (well in the US), and it has been discussed on snopes.
So how can one answer such a question (which asks for data that nobody serious is likely to compare) without being off-topic?
s/your/that particular/-- Politics.meta.SE seems like a good place to distinguish and evaluate any such given particular methods, and if there is sufficient consensus, to set policy. At which point we might progress to something like "This method of theorizing is the notorious foobar method, (suppose there's a URL about it here), which is disallowed".