Exit polls

Last night I was wondering about exit polls. The TV "news" people (particularly Fox News) were crowing about how misleading exit polls are, and how they were wrong in 2000 and wrong in 2004. It just didn't sound right to me. They were saying that people could lie about how they voted and mess up the exit polls. Why would people do that? What's the payoff in doing that? And if lying were screwing up the exit polls to be in favor of Kerry, it means that Bush voters were saying they voted for Kerry - to what end? So that people would think Kerry were winning? I don't think so. That's not the way it works - they try to make it look like their man is winning, no matter what, because it encourages opposition voters to stay home if they think there's no use.

I'm just wondering, and thinking that if the exit polls weren't wrong, and I see no reason they should be so wrong, and if they might have only been wrong in 2000 and 2004, and not in previous elections, then we can be pretty sure the voting machines were intentionally jacked. (See more on voting machine inadequacies and risks on my webpage here. And don't forget the Diebold CEO's promise to deliver Ohio to Bush.)

Now, today I see this comment on a blog:

At the moment I'm not quite resigned to simply accepting the votes in FL & OH as provided. That the difference between the exit polls and the reported votes is so vast in those two places and ONLY those two places is suspicious enough to warrant some investigation.

Is that true? That the exit polls were only wrong in Florida and Ohio? Does anybody know? And what about before 2000?

Or do I have to research this myself?