These were E Mails from people in New Hampshire who are questioning if the 

 New Hampshire Primary was irregular. Some were Libertarians. 

"What type of voting machines do they have in NH?  And

 why would people that would give you their opinion

 after voting not tell the truth about who they did

 vote for?"

 Just giving a bit of input on this...

 I voted in New Hampshire.  I voted on a paper ballot which was fed

 into a machine which would record my vote WITH a paper trail.

 I do not know if we have electronic (computer) voting in any area of

 New Hampshire, but I live in the biggest city (Manchester) and we’ve got the paper system here.”

   

Forward:  Sent to Fox and Friends on 1-10-08

Dear Sirs:

While I don't give much merit to polls taken before an

election because of the undecided voters, the exit

polls taken after people vote should be correct.  The

exit poll according to your channel was 39% for Obama

and 20 something percent for Hillary.  So how could

she have won by that margin?  The exit polls stated he

won or would win.

What type of voting machines do they have in NH?  And

why would people that would give you their opinion

after voting not tell the truth about who they did

vote for?

Regarding the tears before the voting, they were real

tears; however, it was an act/ploy to gain votes; she

knew the camera was there and apparently it worked.

She told the people of NY and the country while

running for the NY Senate that she had "no plans to

run for president", even after elected she stated

that,now she states it has been a "life goal".  Do we not

remember anything?  What do we believe when she

speaks, for apparently, at least one of the times she

was lying?   Don't know about you, but I am tired of

that from our leaders.

As I say, what type of machines do they use in NH for

voting?  Also, your female anchor (forgive I don't

know name) stated that Bill Clinton had been mad at

the media for reporting against her and/or as they put

it, "not keeping the other candidates honest,"  could

that be because you don't have to keep the other

candidate honest?  Seems she is the only one that

states one thing and than does the other.  Please

don't stop keeping her or any of them honest.  Thanks.

HOW REAL IS THE POSSIBILITY OF STEALING AN ELECTION

USING ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES?

Ever since the bizarre results of the presidential

election in Florida in 2000, that finally was 

resolved by 5-4 vote in the U.S. Supreme Court, and

then again four years later in Ohio, where strange

things once again were

happening all over the state, questions have been

asked about how reliable

electronic voting machines really are, and whether

it would be possible to

alter the results of votes cast on these machines

without detection, and

thereby swing an election from one candidate to

another.

The answer is now quite clear and conclusive.  Can

it be done? Yes?  Has it

been done? Well that is a much more complex claim

that is a lot harder to

prove.  Here's why.

Given the nature of the hardware and software that

is used by the voting

machines that played a major role in the voting

processes in Florida, Ohio

and many other states, it would be close to child's

play to steal an

election and have this result go not only undetected

but the kicker is that

given current technology it would also be

undetectable! So how then do you

prove such an accusation?

If you give some credence to this possibility of

rigged machines, you could

of course wander down the cui bono path, do a quick

check to see who owns

the companies that produce these machines, what role

these owners themselves

played in recent elections, what public statements

they made, and what

incentives they might have had to exploit this

vulnerability in the machines

that they made, sold, installed and controlled.

That might give a bookcase

full of insights and motivations. But no proof.

Finally, it is also noteworthy that most of the

contracts for the sale and

use of these machines make it mandatory that only

employees of the companies

that manufacture the machines are supposed to have

access to the hardware

and software. So if you wanted to give in to such a

temptation is would be

dead easy. Call it a cake walk, slam dunk, or

whatever you like.

Small wonder therefore that at least some

responsible adults, who have read

and digested the quotes at the top of this missive,

are finally and

belatedly calling, increasingly loudly too, for

these machines to be

banished from polling booths all across the nation,

and some more credible

and reliable method to be used instead.  A growing

number of state

governments are finally waking up and taking this

necessary action now,

hopefully ubiquitously enough to give a reasonable

shot at a really clean

election once again this year. Simple paper ballots

for all Federal

elections would be one very easy alternative, but

that is yet another story!

BACK TO THE EVIDENCE

Some very serious academic efforts have been made

since 2000 to address

these voting machine vulnerability questions. These

include studies carried

out at Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins and elsewhere.

Especially noteworthy among these was a project

carried out by Princeton

University. Click on the link below and it will take

you to a nine minute

video presentation that was prepared by this project

team showing how easy

it is to introduce malicious software that will give

results that are

different from the intentions of the voters who use

such an electronic

voting machine.

http://www.fliggo.com/video/FrvJDAUx>

Princeton Study Exposes

Diebold Flaws

The Princeton test of a Diebold AccuVote-TS machine

was set up to determine

whether such a machine could be hacked under "real

election conditions",

involving a realistic scenario in a voting location.

Princeton found this

machine to be highly vulnerable to a number of

"extremely serious attacks".