Saltman's comment (PS, July 2004, 383) simply ignores the bulk of my previous letter (PS, January 2004, 1–2) which dealt with Alabama. I gather that there he agrees with Russell and myself. Thus, there is no dispute on the question of whether Nixon or Kennedy had more popular votes in 1960. His criticism concerns my feeling, originally suggested by Russell, that with more political honesty on the part of the Chicago and Texas machines, Nixon might have taken the Electoral College, too. He doesn't specifically dispute my statement that the difference in Illinois was “smaller than the usual number of votes produced by the Chicago machine from graveyards and empty lots.”

Although I used to live in Chicago and was familiar with the work of the machine, I had not realized that they had switched to voting machines by the 1960 election. This doesn't really make any difference, however. It is just as easy to add votes on the machine record as to stuff the ballot box. In both cases the people supervising the polling stations, members of the machine, simply permit more votes to be cast than the actual number of voters. Thus, I regret being behind the times on this matter, but I don't think it makes much difference.

He doesn't contest my remarks about Texas either in any direct way. I referred to votes cast by cattle in South Texas. I, of course, did not have the personal knowledge of Texas that I did of Chicago, but my remarks were surely in accord with the prevailing view among students of the problem. His main criticism concerns really the idea introduced by Russell on Nixon's motives.

Lastly, with respect to future biographers of Nixon, I imagine that they will be typical intellectuals and vigorously anti-Nixon. That they would credit him with being politically different before the 1960 election than after seems unlikely. Whether this is a reflection of their prejudice or careful and impartial consideration, I leave to the reader.