Very interesting. I wonder if this has legs...

There should be no voting WHAT SO EVER on electronic voting machines. They're far too easy to hack and leave no paper trail.

I hope it's investigated further. Hand count totals had Paul at closer to 15%.

There is NOTHING more important in a functioining democracy than a reliable result of an election. In can not be seen as someone has the opportunity to cook the books. This is absurd. It's especially scary that the ones where the diebold machines were not used they followed the polls. This one may have to be fixed before we fix the imported oil crisis.

Machiavelli Wrote:There is NOTHING more important in a functioining democracy than a reliable result of an election. In can not be seen as someone has the opportunity to cook the books. This is absurd. It's especially scary that the ones where the diebold machines were not used they followed the polls. This one may have to be fixed before we fix the imported oil crisis.

Aren't you one that doesn't believe identification should be a requirement to vote?

Here in Ohio (Montgomery County) we use Diebold machines. This past election I used the machine for the first time, and at the end there was a paper copy of my ballot. It stated each issue and how I voted, and I was told to review it to make sure that the machine properly printed out my vote. I then put the piece of paper in a ballot box and handed my voter card to the poll worker. Full paper trail...

mlb Wrote:Here in Ohio (Montgomery County) we use Diebold machines. This past election I used the machine for the first time, and at the end there was a paper copy of my ballot. It stated each issue and how I voted, and I was told to review it to make sure that the machine properly printed out my vote. I then put the piece of paper in a ballot box and handed my voter card to the poll worker. Full paper trail...

We use Diebold in my precinct. No paper trail.

We had the option in Missouri... EVERYONE used a paper ballet. Election official told me no one would even get near the machines LOL

ALL electronic voting should be stopped...and ONLY paper ballots should be counted and proof of ID should be mandatory...to HELL with how long it takes or how much work it takes...Without TOTAL confidence in the accuracy of elections ...NO democracy can be legitimate. Our government LOVES to mandate in OTHER countries valid elections...But..CANT be honest enough to insure its own...Just another example that proves that when the US government is involved...FAILURE results...the freemarket could handle elections much better than our government...cheaper..and more accurately...Why?...because there would actually be COMPETITION for price and excellence in accuracy.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:the freemarket could handle elections much better than our government

oh yea, theres no chance for fraud in that

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:the freemarket could handle elections much better than our government

oh yea, theres no chance for fraud in that

Learn about freemarket economics and them come back and try to explain how ANY functionary of the government can outperform the excellence of service of the freemarket.

I'm as die-hard an Obama backer as there is, but NH's results were accurate.

They matched the exit polls, which is what matters, not polls taken two days before the vote.

Having grown up in NH politics, I can tell you that about a fifth of the people that live there really do just go in to the voting booth and decide with their gut at the last minute. It is a ridiculously difficult state to poll, especially in primaries.

Essentially what happened is that Hillary's base of lower middle class women in Manchester and Nashua (and similar smaller working class towns like Rochester and Salem) came home to her. They flirted with Obama over the weekend, but they felt sympathy for her in the last 24 hours and came home.

Its a blip. Obama is very well-positioned to continue this fight. They've learned lessons. And its not like she can cry again.

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:There is NOTHING more important in a functioining democracy than a reliable result of an election. In can not be seen as someone has the opportunity to cook the books. This is absurd. It's especially scary that the ones where the diebold machines were not used they followed the polls. This one may have to be fixed before we fix the imported oil crisis.

Aren't you one that doesn't believe identification should be a requirement to vote?

Mach?

I'm conflicted on a response. I have never stated my belief here. I believe one way but another way helps my team. So, I'm officially impartial.

Machiavelli Wrote:I'm conflicted on a response. I have never stated my belief here. I believe one way but another way helps my team. So, I'm officially impartial.

Thanks for the admittance. You're essentially saying you have no problem with breaking the law, so long as your party is elected. Apparently you don't care about that functioning Democracy as much as you'd like to think.

No, I do think poor people who don't have driver licenses should have the opportunity to vote. I think many of the poor are disenfranchised by some of the identity laws. So, even though on the whole, it sounds like a good idea. The devil is in the details.

Quote:Robert Barnes reported that the Supreme Court will hear a politically divisive voter identification case next week ["Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID; Justices to Hear Challenge to Law," front page, Dec. 25].

However, he buried the lead: Millions of eligible, registered voters lack identification -- they do not drive, fly or routinely enter office towers, although they do vote and have done so most of their adult lives. Many of them -- poor, elderly, disabled and student voters -- lack the stringent government-issued photo identification required by Indiana and four other states.

Eighteen percent of voters over 65 and more than 3 million disabled people lack government IDs. African Americans obtain driver's licenses at half the rate of whites. Many rural elderly were born at home and have no birth certificates. The costs of getting a government ID can be prohibitive: up to $45 for a driver's license, $97 for a passport and more than $200 for documents proving citizenship. In 1966, the Supreme Court held that a $1.50 fee was an unconstitutional poll tax. These burdens are equally onerous.

Voters already attest that they are registered. They risk fines and jail if they lie about it.

States have an interest in protecting the integrity of elections, but burdening the right to vote with illogical requirements that potentially disenfranchise millions of voters is the wrong approach.

To me your voter I.D. laws help Republican's and hurt Democrats. It's like the poll tax Southern states use to have to keep blacks from voting.

but, I do understand that Voter Id laws would help out in the fraud arena. Hence the confliction.

Machiavelli Wrote:No, I do think poor people who don't have driver licenses should have the opportunity to vote. I think many of the poor are disenfranchised by some of the identity laws. So, even though on the whole, it sounds like a good idea. The devil is in the details.

IDs are free. Driver's Licenses cost. Not to mention, you need an ID to cash a check, which those "poor people" that you refer to get from the government anyway. Now, what's your excuse again? You're not being consistent. First you want a paper trail. Well, a paper trail has to be tied to eligible voters in a district. In my district, they have cards with every eligible voter. If an ID isn't required, who in the hell protects MY GDamn right to vote? Who stop some Democrat from saying they're me and voting in my place? Your argument makes no sense and you're position is once anchored in hypocrisy.

Nice Try. I said I'm impartial. I'm not gung ho about voter ID laws because of the possibilty of the disenfranchisement of millions of voters. I'm sure your just as upset at Katherine Harris for striking the votes of 58,000 voters in democratic precincts in Fl. in 2000. Sometimes for just having the same last name as a felon. These voter I.D. laws are in many cases power grabs.

There does need to be a better system in place. When someone can walk into my precinct and vote as me there is a problem.