Diebold Machines Win NH for Clinton?
| Hand | Diebold | Difference | |
| Clinton | 35.17% | 40.71% | 5.54% |
| Obama | 39.20% | 36.24% | -2.96% |
| Edwards | 17.71% | 16.97% | -0.74% |
| Richardson | 5.64% | 4.40% | -1.24% |
| Kucinich | 1.89% | 1.25% | -0.64% |
| Others | 0.49% | 0.44% | -0.05% |
In hand counting precincts Obama did well, in machine counted precincts he did poorly. Is it due to the machines or is it due to the machine precincts being in more populated areas? These are interesting questions. Only a comparison of the electronic tally v. the paper ballots can give us an answer as to whether there is a problem like what we experienced here in Ohio in 2004. Speaking of 2004, several boards of elections around the state defied the federal judge’s order to preserve the ballots. They destroyed the evidence of election fraud. Ohio law provides that the vote count be observable. It simply cannot be observable when it is an electronic impulse. Accuracy and verifiability trump counting speed in my book.