Nearly 15 point shift from last night's polls to today's vote, with unaudited Diebold scanners?

Now where did I leave that tinfoil hat? It's probably a little dusty but I feel a sudden urge to find it.

the real crazy thing is that Obama's numbers were going up by the hour and Hillary's were going down.

by the way this new video shows how easily the New Hampshire scanners can be hacked (or rigged):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

doing the counting.

Got my tinfoil at the ready.

to be the Dem nominee ... someone they KNOW they can "work with" win or lose in the General

check out this story that broke today, about how attached neocons are to having hillary be their Dem nominee of choice
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080108_conservative_right_c.htm

why the Dems - particularly Kerry - never seriously addressed the voting issues. Seems like the Dem leaders have always been the least concerned about all the well-known problems.

something doesn't smell right.

i don't know his record on cleaning up elections, but i bet this gets his attention big time.

he was asked about suspicious results from 04 and poo-poo'd it.

that's one of the reasons I don't want him as our candidate. He won't fight election fraud; he's too naive to believe it's possible.

It will be interesting to see how he deals with this, or IF he sees anything fishy in the wild deviations from the poll numbers.

The corporations have already picked their candidate, all that's left now is for everyone to play their part.

have picked THEIR candidateS...with their money...

and their perfectly-running, well-oiled propaganda/(s)election/consumption machine cranks along...

(http://www.storyofstuff.com/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZMTY4V7Ts)

It don't matter what part of ObamClintWardCaineOmnyUliani "wins" in November...

Heads they win, tails you lose...

Just like Kerry! :eyes:

he would lose the respect of A LOT of the electorate, and be seen as a sore loser.

the recount? They lose either way, don't they?

having the integrity of the system depend on the LOSER calling for the recount is ridiculous.

I mean, the exit polling was off by at least a half dozen points.

Velvet Revolution Calls on Candidates To Demand Investigation into NH Results

It was posted to Velvet Revolution during the night, and I just recapped it here on DU.

Made up their minds today right before voting. :shrug:

Hallelujah!

...the is something else going on here, I get the feeling...

NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting)

81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say "but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!"

But they're not. They're counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount. (Is it just a funny coincidence that Diebold spokesman is named Mr. Riggall?)

We need to get the count right on election night. Right now, nobody in New Hampshire, except the programmers at LHS Associates and Diebold Election Systems, knows if we are getting it right or wrong. Our state officials and representatives know this. They learned all about it when computer security specialists Harri Hursti and Bruce Odell testified before the legislative subcommittee on e-voting in September 2007 (Hursti's testimony is shown in this video). Scientific reports about the vulnerabilities and risks with Diebold optical scanners have been available since 2003.

We love our state. It takes courage and strength to admit where we are going wrong and to fix it. May our state officials and representatives find that courage and strength soon. Before we lose the other 19% of our votes.

-snip
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5307

From Diebold because people were getting to know it. May they rot in hell.

"Premier" in making whomever they get paid to place first! Fuckers!

who cares anyway. it's just a name. people know the name diebold so i keep using it. so shoot me.

He didn't care about anything else, and said New Hampshire would be a indication of how the 2004 election would go.

I believe that.. not. Are you unaware of the 17% undecided in the new hamphsire polls? I guess they decided today, didn't they? The exit polls showed her winning and those are the important ones. Other polls are pretty useless, as so many voters have cell phones, not land lines anymore.

The idea that somehow HIllary rigged a damn primary is laughable.

Just a thought.

That would eliminate exit polling as a check on fraud, no?

I read the numbers wrong at first. 15 is pretty realistic because last night Obama was ahead by about 12 points, and his numbers were going up every time they took a poll. Right now it's showing Hillary up by 2.

the machines are not audited.

I believe only a recount will allow anyone's eyes to see any actual ballots.

check their website tomorrow (http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/) they might have something to say about it but the sad truth is we have no idea if the counting is correct unless someone gets to see the ballots.

~80% Op-scan so there will be a paper ballot. we'll see if activists are allowed to audit the vote. With only one race, it should be simple.

they have one of the best groups of election activists in the country there. check their website at democracyfornewhampshire.com

they have to work within the law. they can't just demand to see the ballots.

We all should have been more diligent in getting rid of these damn voting machines.

In study after study these machines are not accurate and easily hacked.

How many times does history have to repeat itself before we learn something?

:wtf:

Excuse me, some people here have spent thousands of tiring hours since then, doing everything we can to get rid of the machines, or at least get some freaking audits on them. I myself didn't know much about them 4 years ago and now I run, Vermonters for Voting Integrity (http://solarbus.org/vtvoters) and the Election Justice Center (http://election.solarbus.org) and I have two newsletters with thousands of subscribers. I opened the Election Justice store with nearly every book and film written about the machines (http://www.solarbus.org/store/election.shtml).

What else would you like us to do? Stand naked in front of the capital building until every last machine has been incinerated?

There really are a lot of people trying to do something and luckily some states like California, New Jersey and Ohio are doing something about it.

You certainly can't blame us folks here at DU for not trying.

they've been pulling out the stops these last few weeks.

Ground game?

soccer moms

soccer is big in NH. real big. especially in January.

and they wanted to keep it a surprise.

:puke:

We'll never know for sure what the deal was today.

Remember how the polls were all going Dean's way and then poof! On election day everything miraculously turned to Kerry? In a thread last week I predicted that "all would be revealed," meaning Hillary would pull off a "miraculous" win. Expect more poll-defying primaries.

the candidate playing the role of who is supposed to lose: Dean (vs. Kerry), Kerry (vs. Bush), Obama (vs. Clinton)

Romney would have won.

Hillary won.

vs. hillary and then gulliani will win. just heard commenter on cnn say "i dont think any poll is worth looking at bbecause they're always wrong" and note that the pollsters got te repub race correct.

It's the corporate wing. Look at who the corporations have picked as their nominee. Corporations do not vote on "values", so right vs left doesn't bother them. And then, since when is being a warmonger a left-wing thing?

much better in the diebold counties then he did in the hand counted counties. He lost to McCain by about 15% in hand count areas but only by about 2 in diebold counties.

That might make some sense. Diebold is in urban areas and large towns, hand counts are the smaller towns and rural areas. Mitt might have more city people appeal and McCain have rural appeal.

However...seems Obama would have more urban/large town appeal too. But that is where he lost. He won the rural/small town vote. http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
In my state that is where he would be likeliest to do the worst. I'd think that was true for most states.
He only beat Hillary by about 4% in those hand count smaller areas but that just seems backwards to me. Logically he should have done more poorly in those areas.
Him loosing Diebold, winning hand counts under these conditions...that doesn't sit right.

for the vast right wing

If this were any deciding election in the world, the results would be challenged based on the poll numbers. Are the primaries just not important enough to where we could just let it slide?

I know it would hurt a candidate to call for a challenge, but it's not about them, it's about the voters. Now if polling shows tomorrow that there really was an overnight shift, that's one thing. But I'm not buying this until I see something credulous that explains the shift.

About how it turned out. So the conspiracy theory needs a different reason than they used last time.

how you want it if you mean to rig the result. This is what happened in 2000 and 2004, after all. If a candidate is leading by a significant percentage, you can't flip the vote without raising suspicion. But 2-3% is the margin of error, keeps you safe.

with a "substantial lead" that matched the earlier polls.

Matthews just revealed he was shown it just before the polls closed and it looked like a huge Obama lead.

The weighted exit polls that get release always match the results, that is standard and open.

ABC announced that exit polling showed the race to close to call.

They couldn't make any comments off raw data and it was suppose to be seen by very few.
Matthews is just a blabbermouth trying to prove his point that people lied to the exit pollers.

So.. in this case... not a single New Hampshire resident can do anything about it.

They didn't move.
How strange is that?

and it was like that for a while.

I am an EDWARDS suppporter. I don't give much of a rat's ass about Hillary or Obama. But this election was so BLATANTLY STOLEN that it wrenches my gut.

HOW BLIND CAN WE BE????????????????

a swing like that is just a fluke-right?

:sarcasm:

No one is saying that Edwards got shafted or that he should have won.

How is it sour grapes, then, to infer that skepticism is necessary considering non-transparent privatized "voting" which suddenly (and coincidentally, I'm sure) produces these massive "Dewey vs. Truman" upsets pretty regularly now.

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence this started happening once our voting went privatized and therfore "dark" to the public, our representatives, our law enforcement, and our inspectors.

A video poker machine gets inspected twice a year for computer glitches, how come that's not "proprietary software" that isn't permitted to be inspected?

I don't mind that Hillary won, really - what I do mind is that all the polling, including Hillary's own, was so very wrong. Hillary would have had nothing to do with rigging anything. The machines are repuke owned and have proprietary software. The repukes would only be interested in who was easiest to beat, IMO, OR they might prefer Hillary.

When even the winner is so surprised by the outcome, it makes me wonder. When Edward's and Richardson's numbers didn't change at all just about the entire time, it makes me wonder. When Hillary was never once in 2nd place, it make me wonder. I watched the returns coming in in Iowa, and there was constant shifting, up until Obama grabbed the lead - then there was constant shifting between 2nd and 3rd place the entire time.

I, for one would feel SO much better if Diebold had nothing to do with it. I HONESTLY don't mind that Hillary won, although I prefer Obama. The point is, something smells fishy. Is this going to be happening all the way along, through the primaries and to the election? THAT's the part that worries me.

I congratulate Hillary's supporters on her win - I just wish I could feel better about it, and that in NO WAY reflects on Hillary. It's Diebold I have a problem with.

garybeck, I read downthread that you are very involved in election and voting system issues and have to say Thank You So Much for all your hard work.

This must break your heart, I'm so sorry.

I've seen this moranic rant posted here all night by others. Yeah, they rigged a primary.. do you even see how idiotic and paranoid that sounds?

do a little research before you make a fool out of yourself.

the fact is that anyone at Diebold or LHS could have rigged the election with little effort.

Don't mess with me. I know what I'm talking about. I've been researching this for years and I have the testimony of the experts behind me.

Only the ill-informed can say it's idiotic and paranoid.

WAS done.

Skepticism works both ways.

But that's a conspiracy as well. Oh, and there were 17% of undecideds in New Hampshire until today...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/...

Average McCain Poll Lead - Night before election: 3.6 Pts
Actual at this moment: McCain leading Romney by 5
VARIANCE: 1.4%

Average Obama Poll Lead - Night before election: 8.3 Pts
Actual at this moment: Clinton leading by 2
VARIANCE: 11.3 %

The kicker: I heard Wolf say that the people that made up their mind TODAY split between Obama and Hillary.

This scenario is almost EXACTLY what happened in Florida in 04. Kerry led by 3 and lost by 6 - Variance of 9 %. But with last minute deciders going to Kerry.

Now, before you say poor sport - I would be the first to say congratulations when it's fair and
square. But this stinks too high heaven. And most everyone here, if they didn't have any
vested interest would say the same damn thing.

Hillary's the ideal candidate for the GOP to run against, so it's not too hard to figure out why they'd want her to win the nomination.

She's so far right she can barely be considered a Democrat, meaning the GOP can lean further right to capture the votes of the fundies, neo-cons and 23-percenters, while the left has no choice but to hold their noses and vote for her. She's very polarizing. I've lost count of how many people have told me "I don't like Bush, but I'll vote Republican if Hillary's the Democratic candidate." Many people - independent/moderate, liberal, and conservative alike absolutely hate her. Her personality rubs people the wrong way. She's the most easily swiftboated.

She'll get ripped apart by the GOP if she gets the nomination, and even if she does win the general election, she's been bought and paid for by the corporatists. The war in Iraq will continue, health care will continue to get worse, and everyone who isn't in the top 0.5% of incomes will continue to get screwed.

Hillary must be stopped at all costs.

I'm not going to post this to thirty five threads, just here and just once. I don't believe it.

and smash every last fucking one of these machines.

They can't rig the election if their theft mechanism is broken. And in this case "they" can mean whomever you think it means.

If the Delusional Lackey Cowards continue to ignore this issue (because they obviously benefit from the outcome), then we can't expect our so-called elected representatives to take care of this problem.

Vandalism? Yeah, well so was the Boston Tea Party. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears.

by hand, there will always be doubt about our elections.

There is absolutely no reason that people should NOT be able to Count ALL the Ballots by Hand at the precinct, no reason whatsoever.

:)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/new_hampshire-primary.html

Cherrypicking numbers just makes this ridiculous crybaby theory look more ridiculous.

You are cherrypicking, not the OP.

I'll go with the ridiculous crybaby theory that has been historically right and before most people got it, thanks.

There have been election upsets before voting machines, you realize that right? I'm sure you also realize that polling during a soft "bounce" is notoriously unreliable.

I also notice the OP doesn't mention exit polling. Oh, but I forgot, CNN was in on it. :eyes:

What are you talking about?

HarveyKorman is a long time DUer, a Progressive, and a strong supporter of GLBT and ALL OTHER civil rights. For shame.

His profile isn't disabled.

Sheesh.

so Diebold is a reliable party now when it comes to vote counting, right? And all the research that shows how easily a single person can rig an election count for sh*t now because Hillary won, right? Right?

This is not 2000 and 2004.

Show me counties where there are overvotes that number in the thousands, and I might believe you. Show me counties that were projected to go overwhelmingly for one candidate and inexplicably flipped, and I might believe you.

None of that happened here. The counties that were expected to go for Obama (mainly western NH), he overwhelmingly won. Clinton won largely due to rebounding support from women and in cities in southern NH where she was strong BEFORE IOWA. Whether or not you think the exit poll numbers were adjusted, the demographic breakdown reflects this and the result is explainable by events that took place on or before election day.

The question you should be asking is why polls showed such a dramatic shift in support in just a day or two in a state that Clinton was winning. The fact is, NOBODY would be asking this question if it was Clinton who was up in the polls and Obama came from behind to win it. They'd be celebrating the upset and talking about how the pundits were wrong and the people had spoken.

People are trying to disguise a partisan squabble as concern about election fraud. It cheapens the effort to expose the actual fraud that occurred in 2000 and 2004 and may occur again in 2008.

Indeed, against her, it would be foolish. She's their best shot. The formal Republicans would require too much fraud to win, even for them.

These are the crucial elections. That's why corporatists like you are happy to accept that there was fraud in 2000 and 2004 and to invoke the presidential election as the one significantly imperilled by Republican fraud.

You don't know thing 1 about me so STFU, thanks.

Continue to be in denial if you can't reconcile your worldview with reality.

know him, didn't know anything about him, "I know what you say!"

However, I shall graciously forbear from continuing my mockery of you with his addendum.

While you're sitting in the UK, condescending to me from behind a computer screen, I'm an attorney who has attended hearings organized by NYVV at the NYC Board of Elections in order to keep DRE voting machines OUT of my state.

I appreciate the problem with unverified voting. I really do. What I don't appreciate is a bunch of partisans turning "fraud!" into a rallying cry because a Democrat they don't like won a single state primary when an analysis of the results city by city shows no such fraud took place. In fact, the only fraud I can discern is the king-making effort by the media pre-NH, which clearly the electorate didn't care for.

and you seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent guy. My one big question to fellow Dems on this whole issue is, why would HRC supporters be against those wanting a recount or a real investigation?

I mean, it seems to me that HRC's smart move -- one that would reassure many of us tremendously -- would be to show complete willingness, even eagerness, to have the hand count done. If it turns out that she won fair and square, her position is strengthened hugely and she'd win a lot of respect from everyone for that and for her openness AND a desire to determine that we're seeing fair elections in our primaries.

If it turns out that there was skulduggery going on -- especially using the machines -- then we would have the evidence we need to make certain the e-voting system is corrected before the GE.

I just cannot see the downside for HRC, her campaign and her supporters to pushing for a hand count to allay all suspicions. Whereas when some -- not you, necessarily, but certainly some -- of her supporters are hurling the nasty term "sour grapes" and other invective at those of us who have reasonable questions about this primary's "amazing" results only serves to further divide Dems.

Further dividing Dems, from what I've seen on DU in recent weeks, might be devastating to our chances of ever uniting and pulling together enough after bitter primaries to put our Dem nominee into the White House next January.

What does it make HRC's side look like if they cry, "No, no! DON'T hand count the votes!"?

evidence. Shredders, etc, just won't hack it. Savvy? Capisce? No need for a smoking gun. Non-transparent elections are inherently fraudulent. It is incumbent on the government to prove the integrity of the vote count.

Be gone, you drone.

into the spin.

Right into the deep end with perfect precision.

But not an 15 swing in 24 hours. When has that ever happened? The chances of something fishy not happening seem slim at this point.

There is more than a little something wrong here.

when no serious Dem leaders raised the issue of possible vote rigging, not in all the years since 2000. That was my main problem with Kerry in 2004. But then being a sore loser is the worst dishonor ever, so that explained all, didn't it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3958198&mesg_id=3960443

And yes, just hours ago I heard Morning Joe talking with someone who claims that he was expecting this result.

Please try to keep up with the times we are in.

DO you really think if the Obama campaign thought there was something fishy with the result they wouldn't have said something?

They would not. Just like Kerry never did. Just like HRC never did, unless my memory is wrong. Everybody knows electronic voting is totally hackable, and the people who care the least have always been the leading Dem candidates - in 2004 and now.

Doesn't that give anyone pause?

it was the ability of Republicans to vote for the Democratic candidates in the primary. They want to run against her in the general. I'm not saying her votes weren't on the up and up, but it's happened before.

Why bother bickering over candidates, knocking on doors, and working on the campaigns of candidates if you believe Diebold will be choosing anyway? It would save us a lot of arguing and hurt feelings.

I don't want to believe this Diebold stuff because I want to be able to hope that a dem gets elected. If you're telling me the vote is going to be rigged no matter what, why bother coming to this site and to bicker over who would be the best choice?

Voting, organizing, and knocking on doors, there is no context against with which to illustrate that the fraud actually exists.

Phone polling is not accurate. Exit polls are a much better indicator of what will happen, and they were right.

Explanation is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

And the reason I should trust the CNN exit polls is ?? CNN has a long track record of keeping the truth from me.

The bottom line and undeniable fact is that the votes were counted in secret. We just don't know, one way or the other. We can speculate about phone polls, exit polls, trusting CNN or not... That is why we're supposed to have observable vote counts, like it says in the Constitution.

why do you find those polls worthy of credit, but then dismiss the exit polls?

look - the prepolling was not just one source. Hillary, obama, the media, all had their own polls and they ALL showed Obama with a double digit lead, which was inreasing up to the election.

the exit poll as I understand is just one.

so there is an argument to trust the prepolling more, but I'm not even saying that.

I'm just saying there is suspicious results, reason to question, and NO reason to believe what Diebold is telling us because they counted the votes in secret.

Do you have any idea why they couldn't make a projection? If, like you say, the exit polls were accurate?

There is a three percent spread and they couldn't make any projection until over half the votes were in.

Why do you think that is?

showing Obama with a substantial lead that did match the earlier polls.

Of course the weighted polls fit the results, that is what they do and they say so.
They say it is only to reveal trends.

Particularly around someone as politically charged as Hillary Clinton. I think a lot of people, women especially, don't want to deal with the sneers and vitriol that is unleashed by the Clinton Haters, and don't vocalize, or even acknowledge their support. I've seen people's reaction when someone says they support Hillary Clinton -- the Dems roll their eyes ("she such a Corporatist" "She's the DLC candidate") and the Republicans start frothing at the mouth ('nuff said).

But once they get in that voting booth, the temptation to pull the lever for a woman can become overwhelming. Plus there aren't any Haters around to spit poison at them.

I do market research for a living, and I think we generally get good data, but there's a phenomenon where people follow social norms, which we have to fight all the time (one of the reasons I really don't like focus groups, even though I moderate them)

//I'm saying this as someone who has been a knee-jerk Hillary Disliker up until about now, because I've though all along she was being foisted on us.

So who really won?
Let me guess....Kucinich? :rofl:

when the votes are counted in secret, we just don't know.

making fun of someone for questioning the results when there are valid reasons for doing so is not helpful.


since you obviously don't understand the voting system, let me give you something to think about.

would you like it if your election was counted by a private company who took all the ballots into their company headquarters, closed the door, and later announced the results without allowing anyone to verify what they did?

I guess you would like that?

and you would laugh at people who don't?

Because, that is exactly what we have right now.

Thank you! We all must be vigilant!:grouphug: :yourock:

what is your gut feeling? Who "really" won?

were overflowing and the Clinton events were dead. In fact, the talking heads spent hours last night trying to come up with a narrative that fits the result.

what matters is that our votes are counted in secret and we have no reason to believe the results.

the constitution calls for observable elections and we do not have that.

That's what matters.


as for my gut feeling, I think Obama won NH if the votes were counted properly.

warning us about this.
Did I miss it?

Here is how the election works in NH, and many other places.

1) people fill out a ballot on paper
2) they insert the ballot into a Diebold scanner
3) secret software inside the scanner tallies their vote

it is literally as if we just gave all the paper ballots to Diebold and they took them home overnight and announced who the winner is without allowing anyone to verify.

no one ever sees or counts any of the paper ballots.
no one ever checks the accuracy of the machines.

look at it this way - if someone at Diebold wanted to rig the election and put something in the software code to flip some of the votes, there is literally NO WAY to even find out if they did such a thing.

An AUDIT is when we take SOME of the ballots by a random sample, hand count them, and check them against the scanner/machine count. Of course, the more you hand count, the greater your confidence level.

But with NO AUDIT, there could be a glitch, bug, fraud, anything, and no one would ever know. The actual vote counts could be completely wrong and we would never know.

That's where we are today. No audits. No verification. Secret vote counting. No reason for confidence in results. No observation of vote counting. No democracy.

by the way several states have audits, including California and New Jersey. NH has none.

the paper is there, in case of a recount.

but that is meaningless unless there is a recount!

recounts are very rare, there will not likely be a recount in NH, so the fact that the paper is there is pretty insignificant.

so...

the audit is something that takes place at every election. it samples some of the ballots randomly to check that the machines counted correctly. it is necessary, to have any confidence in election results. many independent studies of the machines have concluded this, I can point you to the studies if you would like.

than an old-fashioned "recount" or a hand count of every paper ballot?

This makes the most sense to me of all the options, this audit option. It would certainly seem to be the best first step to take!

What makes me feel even more suspicious about what happened last night is that when I keep saying "recount," I have to remind myself that there never really was a "count" in the first place! -- EXCEPT by the machine software, and that alone, right? For at least 80% of the state, as I understand it.

THAT is NOT a proper "count" by any definition!

I find myself wondering, do businesses which depend on certain software to do "counting" tasks for them, in cases where the outcome, the total, the final numbers that result are VERY important to them -- do they rely on one and only one calculation by one brand of software? Knowing they will be making critical future decisions for their company based on that result?

And this comparison doesn't even deal with the idea that such a business would let such a number be tallied for them in secret and by some other entity! Such an idea as that would be unthinkable, surely!

Yet it seems that's what we're doing here in our unverified e-voting systems; and it just seems so crazy on the face of it, I can hardly believe this is being permitted in this country.

We the People have so much riding on these elections, on ALL our elections, every one of them. We simply MUST have a way to observe that proper counting is done. Period.

or with what kind of voting machine is being used.

he is definitely on the case now!

:grr:



:tinfoilhat:

Some NH independents may have thought Obama had it locked up by a wide margin so they figured it was safe to switch over and vote for McCain in order to stop Romney.

dramatically were between Obama and Clinton.

Although I did hear on the morning of the primary that McCain/Romney was tightening up. Perhaps the extra independent votes from Obama prevented that from being much closer. ??

(The theory in my post above I have subsquently found out is *approximately* Zogby's take on why the polls were so far off.)

Just how is it possible that these machines and especially these particular models are still being used after the HBO documentary established that they can be used for perfect fraud without leaving any clues?

For that reason this is worth a K&R, for whatever good it does.

doesn't get to decide election policy or reform. they just make movies. you and I are supposed to do something about it.

this time? Rush says it but I expected more bus theories on the Internet.

to believe as the herd does. Unfortunately too many Americans are letting someone else do their thinking for them.

1) Why should we believe them today? The fact that the exit polls matched the official results means nothing in this context.

2) I don't think that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with the Diebold machines, but still don't trust the company that promised to win Ohio for Bush.

Edison/Mitofsky was hired to do more than just not cause others to make mistakes. They were hired to restore confidence to the whole election projection game after Voter News Service botched the job in 2000 in Florida. VNS's goofs resulted in the networks calling the state for Gore, withdrawing the call, calling Bush the winner hours later, and then withdrawing that call.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109310

from 5:30 election night showed Obama with a "substantial lead" that did match the earlier polls.

no?

The PUGs are the ones who fix elections to beat the dems. How many elections has Diebold fixed for dems? I can count them on "NO" fingers.