Election Fraud in New Hampshire: Significant Evidence that Hillary shouldn’t have Won

January 10, 2008

    Firstly, I’d like to thank Jason for bringing this issue to my attention.

This is the U.S.A right? The country that invades countries and funds foreign governments in the name of ‘promoting democracy’ right? (Or not). Maybe America’s taking tips from Kenya.

Let’s skip to the point. In the New Hampshire primary, some votes were counted by hand and some were counted with the aid of a machine. You’d expect the percentage of votes won by each candidate to be roughly the same in the hand-counted votes and the machine-counted votes right? Wrong.

In the hand-counted votes, (which are harder to rig) Clinton won 34.7% whereas Obama won 38.8% – he won. However, in the machine-counted votes Clinton won 40.1% and Obama won 35.8%. Suspicious no? The machine-counted votes gave Hillary 5% more and Obama 3% less. I find it hard to believe that there should be such significant differences with both candidates – especially if both difference benefit the candidate favoured by the establishment. Here is a page with a whole bunch of figured detailing the differences between machine and hand counted cotes.

Of-course, just like Kenya, it’s not like anything will happen. After all, it’s America – land of freedom and democracy. How could the elections have been rigged?

– Nishant