Modified conclusion: In general, combining the first-stage 2005 and 2009 data conveys
the impression that while natural political processes significantly contributed to the election
outcome, outcomes in many towns were produced by very different processes. The natu-
ral processes in 2009 have Ahmadinejad tending to do best in towns where his support in
2005 was highest and tending to do worst in towns where turnout surged the most. But
in more than half of the towns where comparisons to the first-stage 2005 results are feasi-
ble, Ahmadinejad’s vote counts are not at all or only poorly described by the naturalistic
model. Much more often than not, these poorly modeled observations have vote counts
for Ahmadinejad that are greater than the naturalistic model would imply. While it is not
possible given only the current data to say for sure whether this reflects natural complexity
in the political processes or artificial manipulations, the numerous outliers comport more
with the idea that there was widespread fraud than with the idea that all the departures
from the model are benign. Additional information of various kinds can help sort out the
question. Remaining is the need to see data at lower levels of aggregation and in general
more transparency about how the election was conducted.