Reply #76: Ok - I still think the NH recount was legitimate and has been forgotten

[mountebank]

Right - so I guess you're saying that there could have been ballot substitution in New Hampshire. I don't know the specs on their security of ballots - same as you - but I don't think I need to know that to know that when you start talking ballot substitution, on the scale of swinging an election by 10+ percentage points, all of a sudden you are talking about much more difficult fraud (more difficult than changing vote tallies in a central tabulator), something that would require more brazen acts of criminality, with more likelihood of something suspicious being seen/heard/known/leaked. Considering the reputation NH has for transparent elections overseen by largely non-partisan civil servants, I see this as much less likely than tampering with the central tabulator, which seems to be the most plausible way widespread electronic vote fraud could have been perpetrated in 2004, and which seems to be ruled out based on the NH recount. Am I 100% positive there was no widespread fraud in NH? Of course not. But I am sure enough to conclude for my purposes that Kerry lost the popular vote. I'm quite up on the bs recounts in Ohio, etc. I'm well-versed in our history of vote fraud. I put in my hours on vote fraud in the last election. Yet I conclude that Kerry lost, give or take a few. Chalk it up to difference in interpretation, I guess.