2008 scandal saw votes for Paul go uncounted
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, January 9, 2012
Given allegations of vote fraud in Iowa last week, in addition to the documented case of uncounted votes for Ron Paul during the 2008 New Hampshire primary, concerns are again running high amongst Ron Paul supporters that their candidate could be cheated out of a strong finish in Tuesday’s caucuses with the aid of notoriously suspect Diebold voting machines.
Although Mitt Romney is expected to comfortably win the primary tomorrow, current polls  show Ron Paul maintaining a strong second place.
However, such polls counted for little in 2008, when despite Barack Obama’s huge 13 point lead over Hillary Clinton going into the Democratic primary, Clinton ended up winning  by 3 per cent.
Ron Paul also found himself on the wrong end of suspected vote fraud when election officials in districts such as Sutton reported that Paul had received zero votes, despite numerous individuals immediately going public and asserting they had voted for Paul. Officials later had to admit that 31 votes for Paul in Sutton alone had not been counted due to “human error”.
In districts that used notoriously unreliable Diebold voting machines, Paul also received significantly less votes than establishment candidate Rudy Giuliani, despite beating him on votes case by paper ballot. Huge disparities  between votes cast on Diebold electronic voting machines and actual hand counted tallies for the Democratic primary also emerged during the New Hampshire recount.
Mitt Romney profited the most from the Diebold swing in 2008, he received 7% more votes compared to hand counted ballots.
Paul supporters speculate that just as Rick Santorum enjoyed an astounding last minute surge in Iowa to take second place and enable the media to keep Ron Paul out of the headlines, John Huntsman will be used for the same purpose in New Hampshire.
“New Hampshire still uses the same institutionally vulnerable Diebold electronic voting machines as in 2008,” writes Dave Trotter . “So the odds of GOP establishment chicanery are even higher than in Iowa. After all, the establishment that Ron Paul threatens remains firmly in control of the levers and dials of the pollsters and the voting machines.”
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“If Huntsman indeed serves the role of Romney-enabler in New Hampshire, as the new-new Flavor of the Month for the soon-to-be deposed Santorum, expect for him to yield to yet another establishment candidate by South Carolina. Perhaps Perry makes a momentary resurgence?”
Concerns about vote fraud being used to disenfranchise Ron Paul flared in Iowa last week after Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie  said GOP insiders had told her they would prevent Ron Paul winning the primary, namely by making sweetheart deals with voting blocs that would favor other candidates.
After the final vote tally was conducted at a secret undisclosed location , allegations of fraud emerged courtesy of a Ron Paul supporter in Appanoose County, who told an Iowa TV station  that he believed there was a 20-vote discrepancy in the numbers he recorded from his caucus and the numbers that the Iowa Republican Party reported.
“When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa,” Edward True told KCCI TV. “Not Mitt Romney.”
Iowa election officials dismissed the allegations as “rumor” and “innuendo,” while the Santorum camp failed to make any challenge.
Concerns that the establishment is out to sabotage Ron Paul have been provoked by the media’s refusal to even acknowledge the existence of the Paul campaign. The latest example comes courtesy of CBS News , who excluded Paul from the results of a New Hampshire poll, both in graphics displayed on screen as well as on-air discussion, despite the fact that Paul finished second to Mitt Romney.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com . He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infiowars Nightly News.