New Hampshire Vote Rigging?

The primaries are over in New Hampshire, and on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton pulled off an upset of Barack Obama, defying almost all of the pre-vote polls, which had showed Obama with a commanding lead.

The "talking heads" and "experts" had a million reasons why Clinton won, ranging from a backlash from women incensed at what they perceived as unfair treatment of Clinton on "sexist" grounds, to a sympathy vote from undecided voters for the same reason, to a racist anti-Obama vote, to whatever.

However, there is clear statistical evidence that Clinton may won New Hampshire, not for any of the stated reasons, but because she pulled a disparate advantage from precincts that used the Diebold voting machines.

Brad Friedman has the information, here.

Despite the evidence that Friedman presents, this vote disparity has not drawn comment from either the mainstream media or any of the Presidential contenders, except one.

Dennis Kucinich apparently is the only person running for President who is concerned enough about the integrity and accuracy of our elections to call for a hand recount of all the votes cast in the New Hampshire primary. Kucinich got 1.7% of the votes cast for Democrats, so he is fully aware that any recount will not hand him a victory, but that is not the point.

The point is that the voting public must be sure that their own personal vote has been counted exactly as and for the person intended. If there are irregularities, and God knows there have been thousands of documented instances of this happening, then it must be brought to light and steps taken to provide an accurate amended count and prevent similar occurrences in the future.

My own thought on this subject is simple-- to assume that electronic voter fraud is somehow limited to national election days is naive and shortsighted. If the Republicans (in fairness, it could be the work of space aliens) wanted to rig the vote counts to ensure a "win" for the candidate they would most like to run against, this would be a golden opportunity. And why not, given the circumstances. Clinton needed a boost after her loss in Iowa, and the momentum from a victory in New Hampshire could propel her to the candidacy.

I am not suggesting that the Clinton campaign was in any way involved in vote rigging, but that she was "set up" to benefit in a way that the Republicans (or space aliens) feel would most help them. Given their track record in New Hampshire, it seems likely that electronic vote rigging took place.

But wait, it gets better! Cliff Schecter reports that one man, John Silvestro, who heads up a company, LHS Associates, controls and programs not only the Diebold machines in New Hampshire, but also those in Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

Are these dots too hard to connect? Is it too hard to reach the conclusion that we will continue to be "screwees" unless this bullshit is stopped now?