Originally posted by Fran441
The implication here is that electronic voting was a farce and that some results were manipulated, correct?
They could've been manipulated. Did you watch the mini documentary? Those machines are connected to the web via modem and are ridiculously easy to access according to experts.
If that's the case and electronic voting was a factor in New Hampshire given the exit polls, then why didn't they go all the way and put President Bush and Governor Benson in the lead?
Well, yes and no. Do the Republicans have the same "lap dogs" in NH that they have in FL and OH? You do know who the top Reps in OH and FL are right?
I'm not saying that electronic voting is a good thing because I don't think it is. I think the United States should have a uniform system of voting. Everyone should have the same kind of ballot and vote in the same manner. The way we vote shouldn't be different from county to county or town to town.
Even if there isn't a uniform system, it's not that complicated. You get a receipt at McDonalds, yet we have "people" in the US fighting NOT to give voters one? (????)
Had there really been a massive conspiracy involving vote fraud, wouldn't New Hampshire have gone to the Republicans? There are enough Democrats in the State Legislature now to prevent vetoes from being overturned because of this election.
FL and OH were the key states. NH wouldn't have mattered one way or another. It's just four electoral votes.
But unless the electronic voting machines were wrong to the turn of 3.5 million to 4 million votes, people need to realize that more people wanted Bush to be President then Kerry.
Wrong. I think you're taking this "conspiracy" too far. The Republicans only needed 150 thousand votes to win in OH (which had a lot of optical scan machines with the "tally" machines provided by none other than Diebold) . They only needed 350 thousand in FL. They just found one machine who went plus 4000 for Bush. How many more of those are there?
OH problems: they wouldn't accept around 40,000 registrations because of the weight of the paper. A few thousand votes must have been "lost" there. I doubt all 40,000 ended up voting.
- They had something like 4000 challengers in precincts where they knew the votes wouldn't go for them. Wouldn't make sense to challenge your own party sympathizers.
Challenge minority voters, give them provisional ballots while slowing down the voting process. Lines were huge, it was rainy and cold. How many voters were lost there because of they had to leave for age, health and employment reasons?
- Last but not least, Diebold. Its CEO wrote Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Exact quote.
The guy was very actively involved in raising money for the GOP in Ohio. It's no secret.