I wouldn't rule out a ghostly elephant in the machine, especially when that putz Sununu did that much of a leap, outside the MOE. The way Rove plays it is to game it from all sides--voter caging, the phones, the dirty tricks, voter suppression, the machines...hey, you pull enough of that crap, and you pull it off.
And then, there's this:
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/OPINION/708150302/1028/OPINION02
August 15. 2007 12:15AM
New Hampshire's voting system tallied votes in last year's elections, but is it constitutional? Nope, says attorney Paul Twomey.
"In the New Hampshire constitution, there's about four or five separate places where they indicate how voting is to occur, and they all say in a slightly different form that an election official is to count and sort in an open fashion," said Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the Election Day 2002 phone-jamming lawsuit. But with the state's optical scan voting machines, "the counting is outsourced to Diebold," the voting machine manufacturer.
There are ways to use computers to count votes and still be in compliance with the constitution, Twomey said. If state officials had more oversight of the voting machines, if they knew how the system was programmed, then the system could work, he said. "You can utilize outside people, but you should know what they're doing."
Twomey said that his complaints could drive him to file a lawsuit, although he prefers that the Ballot Law Commission, the Legislature and Secretary of State Bill Gardner sort out the issue. Twomey warned about the system last year, before the commission approved new Diebold voting software.
But the time is ripe for another look at New Hampshire's voting system, Twomey and other voting activists say. Earlier this summer, California researchers uncovered security vulnerabilities in several of that state's voting systems, one of which is similar to New Hampshire's. Although state officials say election fraud in New Hampshire is unlikely (they've put in place some safeguards), Twomey and others want the commission to revisit the issue.
"The shortcomings revealed by the California testing are a function of it not being an open, public process," Twomey said. "Ultimately it could come to a suit and I think it's a valid suit. I don't want it to come that way."