Are you surprised?

[stillcool]

I am. who would have thought that consistent polling could be so far off? Who would have thought that people could possibly have no faith in the results provided by computerized voting? Who could possibly call into question the fairness and accuracy of computerized voting? Who would have thought that anyone would consider the idea that exit polling could be manipulated? It's all a conspiracy.

[rodeodance]

1. I am pleasantly surprized and will leave it at that.

[Kip Humphrey]

12. Yeah, we don't need election integrity. No need for a hand recount of the machine totals

Especially when one gets the result one wants! That's a good Republican!

[lame54]

21. This is what we need...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MxF4y9tSG08

[bryant69]

2. Nope. It's the world we live in

Any election that doesn't go the way it is predicted and doesn't go the way the Collective Wisdom of DU wishes it to go will be suspect.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[stillcool]

3. exactly...

just because one candidate is favored over another right up until the end...there is no reason to question the results. Things change on election nights.

[Mike Daniels]

19. People also lie to pollsters

People don't have to sign any sort of honesty disclaimer when they complete a poll so how does one prove the polls had correct data to begin with?

[stillcool]

23. People do lots of things..

but as long as the machine you vote on can not be relied upon to count your vote, there will be questions about election results. When there is no way to verify the vote, the vote will always be in question. It would be so easy to fix this..but no one seems to care about anything beyond tossing around trite phrases like 'sore losers' and 'conspiracy theorists'. Think beyond Obama.

[Dhalgren]

7. My god, bry, we actually agree on something!

I do not dismiss all conspiracies out of hand (as you and I both know), but implying that Clinton won in NH because of electronic voting manipulation is..well...unfounded? Where is there any suggestion of that beyond someone's imagination?

[stillcool]

13. that's it!!

how would anyone come up with such an idea...about computerized voting? Where does this stuff come from?

[Dhalgren]

16. Where have you heard of computer manipulation in Democratic primaries?

I have never heard of a single accusation of computer voting fraud in relation to Democratic primaries, have you?

[stillcool]

17. No. I haven't. Should..

that make a difference? If our voting apparatus can be compromised, should I have faith in some results, and not others? Will any future election be considered accurate as long as the process can not be determined to be accurate? Why should I trust something that has proven to be untrustworthy?

[Dhalgren]

20. Good points. So voting is sort of useless? If every election is

determined by secret manipulation, isn't our voting, in and of itself, empowering the fraud? If we didn't vote, they couldn't manipulate the outcomes, right?

Here is one objection to your suggestions. Voting machine manipulation is most effective if it is undetected. The elections must be close in order for the manipulation to be viewed as a "it could have gone either way" situation. Obama was supposed to have been double digits ahead of Clinton. It would be counter productive to manipulate the vote to such a large extent, because of the very likelihood that the manipulation would be exposed. Do you think that Obama and/or Edwards would just silently swallow a primary being stolen form either of them to the tune of double digit fraud? If so, they neither deserve to be President, anyway. If there had been this big of a fraud, both campaigns would be screaming bloody murder - and they aren't...

[stillcool]

22. It would be so easy

to provide a way to insure accuracy of the vote. But that has not been done. I do not understand how any future election results can be accepted when there is no way to verify the vote. I really don't care what a candidate would do, if he/she thought the vote count was compromised. Been there done that. What I care about is the method by which we vote, the method by which those votes are counted...and why people do not seem to care if the results can be verified.

[Dhalgren]

24. I think that people do care. The problem is "people" can only

fix this problem (and I agree, it is a problem) through the actions of their/our elected representatives. For whatever reason, those elected representatives will not address the problem. What would be your solution? I seriously would like to hear it. If you can't trust the vote counting (which you can't) why would even one anti-BBV candidate win, much less enough to redo our system? It seems unworkable.

[stillcool]

25. the answer to me...

is to have people continue to question the results. It's going to continue anyway..so the more focus now.. the better chance of a fix...sooner...rather than later. As far as I know...which is not much..an automatic hand-count of a certain percentage of votes, and open-source-code provided by the voting machine companies will go along way in determining accuracy. I suppose politicians don't do anything because there is no 'political will'...I think people provide the 'political will'...but they won't as long as they accept unreliable, unverifiable results.

[lpbk2713]

4. I'm surprised Edwards didn't receive more votes.

But this is just really the beginning. Nothing is set in stone.

[stillcool]

10. That surprised me as well...

I did not expect Obama to win in New Hampshire....and I don't expect him to win the nomination. But, I am really surprised about Edwards. All along, I was under the impression that he was far more popular, and more electable than the other two.

[Enrique]

5. no surprise

it's perfectly predictable that people would cry election fraud when a candidate they don't like wins.

[stillcool]

6. Thank you...

for a minute there I thought we might have a problem with our voting system. Now that I see it is so predictable, and nothing more than 'sour grapes', I feel so much better.

[slackmaster]

9. 10-4

"Election fraud" is the new "Wolf".

[slackmaster]

8. Not even slightly

The only polls that matter are official votes.

who would have thought that consistent polling could be so far off?

All unofficial polls have a margin of error. More often than not they are wrong to some degree.

[stillcool]

11. exactly...

like 2004. It will sure be interesting to see how our voting machinery plays out...holds up...to the general election.

[Perry Logan]

14. Who would have thought there could be such sore losers?

[stillcool]

18. Sore losers.

so you trust our voting machinery? If someone questions the accuracy of voting machine results...which have proven to be unverifiable, and inaccurate...that person should be considered a 'sore loser'? In any future election?

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. No.