>>>>>>>>Florida all over again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Governors/2010/1104/Recount-may-loom-amid-confusion-in-Connecticut-governor-race
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Snippet:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, on the basis of unofficial results, has declared Democrat Dan Malloy the victor over Republican Tom Foley. But she says the margin of victory was a meager 3,103 votes out of more than 1 million cast.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>By Mr. Foley’s count, he thinks he won by 2,000 votes. On Thursday morning, the Associated Press, which had declared Mr. Malloy the winner, withdrew its announcement and said Foley was ahead by 8,424 votes. But AP did not announce any winner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe they were assuming a vote count based on what the machines were preset to deliver (like the Reid votes in AZ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Say what?! I'm going to go Tracy on you and ask if you have a citation for that. Arizona may be a crazy state these days but we don't hold Afghan elections in this country.
>>>>>
>>>>>I should have said NV instead of AZ..
>>>>>
>>>>>try (and there are LOTS of sources)..
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.dodgeboard.com/forums/t11336/
>>>>>
>>>>>http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/26/the-seiu-harry-reid-and-voting-problems/
>>>>>
>>>>>Another one..
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/27/watchdog-warns-seiu-contract-nevada-voting-machines-poses-fraud-concern/
>>>>
>>>>None of those presents any proof at all that the machines were preset to deliver anything, or did so. It's three conservative "news outlets" expressing their concern that something might happen. There isn't even anything to refute. You can't refute speculation.
>>>
>>>Ask for links and ignore them. SOP Mike.
>>
>>But I didn't ignore them.
>
>I can't open the links, so I can't read them. Too slow for some reason. I agree though that outrageous statements should be substantiated. However, we did have a situation here in NC. Many early voters went on the news to complain that when they used the touchscreens and voted a straight republican ticket, the result that prints afterward showed they had actually voted a straight Dem ticket. (No word on how to recast those early votes) It was all over the news and the Republican party filed suit, and a federal judge ruled:
>
>http://www.wcti12.com/news/25580337/detail.html
>
>A federal judge in North Carolina says voters must be warned that touch-screen voting machines are sensitive and poll workers will need to keep detailed records of complaints about the machines during next week's elections.
>
>The ruling issued Saturday stems from a lawsuit filed by the state Republican Party against the State Board of Elections a day earlier. The lawsuit alleges touch-screen machines were thwarting voters trying to cast early ballots for GOP candidates.
>
>In his temporary order, Judge Malcolm Howard also requires that records from the iVotronic Voting Machines be preserved.
>
>Thirty-five counties use the machines for one-stop voting and 23 use them on Election Day. Early voting ended Saturday.
>
>State officials dispute Republican contentions that the machines are flawed.
>
>Reports of problems have occurred in Craven, Lenoir, and New Hanover counties
>
>Note: the touchscreens are used in many counties, not just those listed above. There were reports in just about every county of issues with the results. All of the links (from tv stations) only included those counties that use them in their viewing area though. There are plenty more links out there if you care to search.

How does the touch screen voting work ?

Do you get an "are you sure message" or does it just do it the minute you touch the screen.

We still use paper and a pencil here.