Potential election fraud in New Hampshire?

A number of sites are reporting odd discrepancies in the New Hampshire results. When the effect of voting machines is factored into the end count, then the polls would have been right and Obama would have won. We need to look at this BEFORE another primary…   

Here is what Democracy for New Hampshire had to say:

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5307 

NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting)

81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say "but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!"   

But they're not. They're counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount. (Is it just a funny coincidence that Diebold spokesman is named Mr. Riggall?) 

We need to get the count right on election night. Right now, nobody in New Hampshire, except the programmers at LHS Associates and Diebold Election Systems, knows if we are getting it right or wrong. Our state officials and representatives know this. They learned all about it when computer security specialists Harri Hursti and Bruce Odell testified before the legislative subcommittee on e-voting in September 2007 (Hursti's testimony is shown in this video). Scientific reports about the vulnerabilities and risks with Diebold optical scanners have been available since 2003. 

We love our state. It takes courage and strength to admit where we are going wrong and to fix it. May our state officials and representatives find that courage and strength soon. Before we lose the other 19% of our votes.  

Citizens for a Legitimate Government is running a tally for New Hampshire of 'Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results' :

http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html  

 2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 287,580 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 40.121%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.703%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 35.756%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.785%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 5.419% (15,584 votes)
Obama: -3.029% (-8,711 votes)   

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 238,909 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.044%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.536%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.233%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.235%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.509% (17,939 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,781 votes)    

CLG’s Michael Rectenwald is careful to point out:The difference between results from hand-counting and machine-counting do not necessarily signify that the machine-counting is wrong. Other factors may be involved. For example, voting machines may have been used in wealthier, more moderate neighborhoods. There may not be a causal connection between machine-counted ballots and differing totals. One cannot assume that machines are necessarily wrong while hand-counting is necessarily right. –  

But the bottom line is this is serious and potentially speaks to yet another stolen election in 2008. Ideas?