Reply #8: Damn right I'm defensive! Here's why:

[Bill Bored]

It's not about the exit polls; it's about the voting system.

You are the one who is unresponsive. You can't explain how the votes were switched by the voting system. You don't even TRY to. Until you can do that, your "evidence" means nothing.

See if you can understand this:
Even if the exit polls were spot on, if software was used to count the votes, I would NOT trust the election results, or the exit polls. But there was no software used to count votes at the precincts in NY. There were lever machines -- which are in fact the only true voting machines, designed to do one and only one thing: Count the votes as cast.

The question is:
Can the voting system switch votes, or not? In NY, it can't, so you'll need another explanation for why your exit polls were off. I don't have a dog in the exit poll fight, except when people say they are more accurate than a non-computerized voting system with a low undervote rate that can't switch votes and does not even permit overvotes. That's the argument you're making and it doesn't hold water, no matter what the polls say.

NY is about to go down the crapper when it comes to election integrity and all you can do is spout bullshit about exit polls?

If you don't like levers, what are you pushing to replace them?
Hand-counted paper ballots are not an option for NY. We don't have enough poll workers to count them. There won't even be 100% hand counts in the 2009 "pilot" elections using uncertified optical scanners for the first time. And that's only 15% of the registered voters in the state. Far too many votes to put at risk in a "pilot", but it shows that NY election officials are determined to avoid hand counting at any cost -- including the cost of voter disenfranchisement.

So, what the switch to paper ballots really means is that the votes will be counted by computers with only a 3% spot check and no possibility of a recount, except in the courts. And how will anyone know they should even ASK for such a recount? Where will they get the money to pay for it, and to pay the election lawyers? See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x513427

"Sore loser" candidates will NOT be going to court to convince judges that computers can't be trusted. They never do. So the answer is not to allow the computers to count the votes in the first place. (For the sake of brevity, I won't get into the inherent risks of recounting paper ballots post-election, but you can bet a court will do so before granting what appears to be a frivolous recount request!)

If you have something to say about HOW the machines could have possibly been hacked to the extent your numbers suggest, then SAY SO. If not, go away.