"...bloggers and investigative reporters are discovering an odd discrepancy in exit polls being largely accurate in paper-ballot states and oddly inaccurate in touch-screen electronic voting states."

There is no such thing as a "paper-ballot" state. I lived in Indiana. A small town like West Lafayette used paper-ballots, while a larger city like Indianapolis used mechanical equipment.

"Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes?"

That can be said of exit pollsters. One conspiracy no one is looking at is this: Did the exit pollsters try to sway the voters?

The best thread on Democratic Underground right now (and thanks for reopening the discussion threads) holds that the "concession" was merely a ploy allowing the Kerry campaign to operate freely in Ohio, where counting all the provisional and absentee ballots will show a clear Dem victory. This election isn't nearly over, they say.

Let's recount TX and IL--Nixon can still win!

There is a phenomenon: The Stealth Republican... to all outward appearance, they are Democrats. They are adept at deflecting the question as to their party affiliation. They communicate, largely by email, with their friends and like-minded associates, of whom there are many. They respond to polls with false information, they are evasive when quizzed by exit pollsters. Their reticence is caused all the negative sentiment in the MSM. They have many Liberal/Statist friends, and they bear them no ill will. Their numbers, obviously, are impossible to measure. Many are former liberals, college-educated, consumers of MSM (but skeptically, of course).

I like Brian's comment. So did trhe Republicans, for they ran a last -minute ad in Pennsylvania about no one knowing what you're going to do in the viting booth.

I like Brian's comment. So did trhe Republicans, for they ran a last -minute ad in Pennsylvania about no one knowing what you're going to do in the viting booth.

While this is obviously conspiracy theory territory, let me say as someone who does computer security for a living, Diebold's security is a joke and I'd never trust my vote to one of their machines. I'm not concerned about Rovian machinations but simple incompetence. What's sad is that it wouldn't be much more work to have a far more secure system with a verifiable paper trail.

I hardily recommend the system used in Wyoming and Arizona: optically scanned paper ballots. The scanning immediately detects incorrectly marked ballots, allowing corrections, and the paper originals provide an excellent audit trail.

I endorse, Guy and jd.

We use that system here, and although the turnout at my precinct was by far the biggest I've seen in 12 years, it took me less than 5 minutes to vote. 20 booths to fill in the paper ballots, one machine to scan 'em.

While I know nothing about computer security, one of the guys in our Tuesday tech discussion group does. It's amazingly easy to con a computer. He's explained to me at least a dozen ways.