http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a_remar.htm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080116-analysis-new-hampshire-by-the-numbers.html

The most important soundbite about the entire issue from the arstechnica link…

“when you control for town size and a few other factors, vote-counting method (Diebold or hand) still correlates with the outcome (Clinton or Obama) to a non-trivial degree. The remaining question is whether there’s some still unknown demographic variable that accounts for the correlation between a district’s vote counting method and who came out ahead there, or whether monkey business was involved. I personally am leaning toward demographics as the final explanation, for various reasons that, in the end, are so vague as to not be worth going into here.”

Funny … Didn’t i say that a few days ago? (but less eloquently?)

For the purposes of the discussion relating to pre and post election polling, I am wrong.

Does that mean that there has been no tampering with computer tabulations of election results - despite the demonstrations by Princeton et al about how simply it can be done?

Exit polls were “invented” in 1964 by a woman named Ruth Clark. They were not used to project outcomes in U.S. presidential elections until 1984 (Reagan’s second term run).

They were not used to project victory for Teddy, Cal, Herbert, FDR, Harry, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Dick, Jerry, Jimmuh, or Ron’s first election, and proved their fallibility starting with their initial use in 1984.

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/

…frankly, there’s nothing special about the software they’re working on (and have used successfully just recently in a primary). Any system that has the following would be vast improvement to what most states are using:

1) source code that is publicly available for review by anyone (it doesn’t have to be Open Source — it can be copyrighted with all rights reserved, but it has to be readable by anyone)
2) anonymity for voters
2) a paper trail for every vote … so after someone votes they can see, on a piece of paper, the choice they made and that piece of paper is kept in a locked box and can be used to hand verify/recount the digitally computed totals if people question the results.

…so people who voted in areas that used electronic voting machines were self conscious about admitting that they “didn’t vote for the black” but people in areas that used paper ballots are all strong and willing to be honest about their actions?

(I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying Occam’s Razor doesn’t seem to apply to your argument … if you want to look for the simplest rational explanation you have to find an explanation that can show a correlation between peoples attitudes and whether or not they live in an geographic area using electronic voting machines. maybe it’s geo-economic, maybe it’s geo-racial, … i dunno, but it can’t just be “people as a whole tend to lie”

I am sure their video is still up on youTube.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_len_hart_080112_princeton_university.htm (links to the Princeton site within).

It’s quite hilarious, in a sad way, that exit polls were considered to be fully reliable right up until electronic voting machines became so prominant in the 2000 election. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed Obama won by a whopping 5%, which in the past would have been considered a certain victory, but the machines said otherwise. So Hillary squeaks past Obama to victoria. Who is doing it, for what reason - I have no idea and I do not care. Its your country and you are losing it to the owners of the voting machines. What a friggin joke.

How could anyone be so naive (aka moronic) as to cast an election vote on someone else’s hardware/software?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!