The myriad problems of electronic voting machines have been mentioned here before. Given that 80% of electoral districts in New Hampshire use electronic voting machines – and ones made by the infamous Diebold, at that – it’s not surprising that talk of fraud is circulating in relation to the latest primary. Some commenters are arguing that: “In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election” and alleging that this proves either unintentional bugs in the voting system or fraud.
The issue is less the outcome of that particular contest and more the way in which electronic voting machines diminish the perceived validity of elections. Given how they have been proven insecure again and again, and given how straightforward and manageable counting paper ballots is, there really isn’t much reason for anyone to use these machines. Hopefully, the world will finally figure this out soon.
Related prior posts: