Will Diebold Voting Machines Steal Votes From Ron Paul in New Hampshire like 2008?
Ron Paul also found himself on the wrong end of suspected vote fraud when election officials in districts such as Sutton reported that Paul had received zero votes, despite numerous individuals immediately going public and asserting they had voted for Paul. Officials later had to admit that 31 votes for Paul in Sutton alone had not been counted due to “human error”.
In districts that used notoriously unreliable Diebold voting machines, Paul also received significantly less votes than establishment candidate Rudy Giuliani, despite beating him on votes cast by paper ballot. Huge disparities between votes cast on Diebold electronic voting machines and actual hand counted tallies for the Democratic primary also emerged during the New Hampshire recount.
Mitt Romney profited the most from the Diebold swing in 2008, he received 7% more votes compared to hand counted ballots.
Paul supporters speculate that just as Rick Santorum enjoyed an astounding last minute surge in Iowa to take second place and enable the media to keep Ron Paul out of the headlines, John Huntsman will be used for the same purpose in New Hampshire.
“New Hampshire still uses the same institutionally vulnerable Diebold electronic voting machines as in 2008,” writes Dave Trotter . “So the odds of GOP establishment chicanery are even higher than in Iowa. After all, the establishment that Ron Paul threatens remains firmly in control of the levers and dials of the pollsters and the voting machines.”