Vote Manipulation

I’ve actually seen some posts on blackboxvoting.org and other message boards where people who attended caucuses in Iowa reported a lot of irregularities and secrecy with the counting and reporting. One person even provided totals for several precincts she monitored, with Ron Paul winning a couple and placing no lower than third in the others. Multiple other people had commented that Ron won in their precincts.

Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com wrote on his site:
"I received numerous emails from Iowans who had participated in the Caucus, and they were reporting Ron Paul wins in the rooms they voted in."

New Hampshire has now been thrown under the magnifier by the concerned citizens, however this story is being mostly ignored by mainstream media outlets such as CNN (Communist News Network) and Fox (Faux) News.

In some of my online research, I found a quote by Michael Collins of OpEdNews.com who has this to say:
"81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as “Premier”). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say “but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!”

But they’re not. They’re counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount…"

This immediately brought to mind a video segment I had seen with Lou Dobbs where they showed how easily the Diebold machines are hacked and manipulated.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=261IlYmisyE

Ben Moseley of benmoseley.blogspot.com wrote in a post:
"I don't intend to sound off alarm bells, but the question does need to be asked, as we have seen signs of this in the past, such as in Ohio during the 2004 general election. I just spent the last two hours putting together a spreadsheet of the Democratic results of the NH primary for each town with almost all but a few towns reporting, and the results were somewhat surprising. (Note: This is also without including nearly 2500 write-ins due to time constraints.)

I say "somewhat" because some people will say this entirely foreseeable. What the informal statistics show is that Hillary Clinton received a 4.5% boost in towns using Diebold voting machines compared to towns that didn't. Meanwhile, Obama was hurt in these towns showing a 2.5% decrease in the Diebold towns.

...Some more statistics from the data shows that Obama in non-Diebold towns garnering 38.7% of the vote to Clinton's 36.2%. The results in Diebold towns show the exact opposite: Clinton with 40.7% of the vote and Obama with 36.2%. Not only are the positions swapped but the informal statistics have the second place candidate holding 36.2% in both cases, which could easily be a pure coincidence. What doesn't make a lot of sense to me right now and this could be a mathematical mistake on my part is where Clinton got the extra 2% of votes in Diebold towns. All the other numbers almost exact for every candidate, even Edwards who received 17% of the vote in Diebold towns compared to 17.6% in non-Diebold towns..."

The video here: http://www.fliggo.com/video/sk0SiTCu shows a former computer programmer who was asked by the Speaker of The House of Florida to write a simple program for rigging the vote testifying before a court.

Now we have admissions of fraudulent results in New Hampshire, as you’ll read in the linked article. The article reveals a blatant example of erroneous results that people have been speculating about since the beginning.

Considering the admission of irregularity in this story was outright exclusion of Dr. Paul, we also have to now wonder what sort of vote moving and miscounting was also possibly taking place with the machine voting for all the candidates.

Enjoy the read, and remember what Stalin said…
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."