Has Diebold already decided the "results" of America's election?
920179
You make an excellant point. And to the naysayers that claim that this is a Democratic issue, they should do their research. There are several states where the Republicans do not believe in the Diebold machines either, and want a paper trail.\nThe reality is, unfortunatly that if there is tampering, we will never know the truth. That is why it is sooo important that you keep your own record of your vote with a camera. And don't let the concerns make you not want to vote. There may be issues, but you still have to make an effort and vote.
889653
I hope so. . .The unfortunate truth and sad realization is; it proves that our democracy is mostly dependent on money to win elections.\n\nHopefully, this can be addressed and fixed.   The Dem's have spent more than ever, and were very close in spending to what the Reps have. (To win and have payed less is encouraging, and shows a good sign, however, it bothers me to think about where the money came from).\n\nIf the Democrats have resorted to taking funds the same way as the Reps, then we have a change in name only. I hope not, as I am a Democrat, and I personally despise the fact that you need money to win.\n\nThank you all for voting. . .Great Job
1185065
Yes I did...and it was on a DIEBOLD...\nSo that means when my vote went in...\nit was changed to what the Republicans want...\nSuch a corrupt, shallow party....
787482
The Democratic campaign line is: Either we win or you cheated.\n\nI guess those Diebold machines aren't so bad after all.\n\nReba K: "Nobody" voted for "that bigot?" Nobody? Really? Zero? Wouldn't that be a first...
786512
I think it's still still under investigation about her voting twice.\n\nI'm sorry so many people responded to some other question, not to yours. lol. Yes, voting is an American right, Voting twice is definitely NOT, whether you're a crazy pundit or not.
697417
No.  A concession speech has nothing to do with the final count.  If a candidate concedes the election and the actual count later shows that he won, then he won.
68144
I, like most Americans I would bet, haven't been paying enough attention. The few news sound bites and newspaper headlines is hardly enough to be making such decisions.  However, I still have enough faith in our elected officials to are sitting through hours of testimony and reviewing documents and such, to make the right decision.  So if they vote 'em in, the my answer to your question is 'yes'.
943958
We won't know that answer until tomorrow at the earliest.\n\nAbsentee ballots are still coming in and polls aren't quite closed yet on the East Coast. (It is 4.53 mst as I type.)  And many states allow people to vote early.  Those are all counted tonight, even though the people did not technically vote today.  ; )\n\nEdit: I voted last week.  The turn-out in my part of Colorado is great!
946727
I think electronic voting machines haven't been tested enough to be accurate for such an important decision.  Besides, the company that developed them probably has an affiliation to a specific party.  That's reason enough not to use them.  So, to answer your question, yes they will more than likely be programmed to elect..........
627932
You could debate that point. \n\nWhen election boards suddenly find a box of ballots that has just enough votes for their candidate to win (example - the last Washington Governor election), you could probably say it was rigged.\n\nIt is only certain that an election was rigged if Jimmy Carter certifies it.
734177
The results aren't out already... are they?
445822
I think the one we have is just fine.  I mean, come on, does any sane person really think that we today are smarter that the men who founded this country? No. In fact, I think we are infinitely more uneducated than they were.  If you study their reason for using the electoral college, they make perfect sense - a lot more sense than any argument that people make for converting to a popular vote system today.
771970
No, not as long as we are using Diebold voting machines.  (Diebold gives money to Republicans).  Democracy is dead.  Wake up and smell the coffee of the kingdom of George W. Bush...and his gay, merry, pranksters.
928797
You have got to be kidding!\n\nOnly if he is in control of the voting machines.
1136492
I can only name one that I'm aware of, Diebold.  They're based in Ohio I believe and have been in the news quite a bit.  There has been speculation about their machines in the 2004 election and the proper counting of votes.  Should be lots of articles out there on it.
827831
It's never been done.  \nUlysses S. Grant won the 1872 election against his main opponent Horace Greeley with 286 electoral college votes.  Greeley recieved 3, but they were never counted.  There were, however, four other candidates.  Thomas Hendricks recieved 42 votes, B. Gratz Brown took 18, Charles Jenkins won 2 and David Davis recieved 1 electoral vote.   \n\nit's almost happened a few times; \nIn 1820 Monroe beat John Adams 231-1 \nIn 1936 FDR beat Alfred Landon 523-8\nAnd Reagan beat Walter Mondale in 1984 525-13
780778
The website for the NY board of elections doesn't post the unofficial results of the election. They wait until the results are certified. But the candidates are listed on the website. And since Andrew Cuomo was the Democrat candidate for A.G., I'd make an educated guess that he was the winner.