Presscue, Ronrox, The Contrarian, and others are pointing out that Clinton seems to have done much better in towns with Diebold voting machines than in other towns, in New Hampshire. Drunkard’s Lamppost looks closer at the numbers and suggests that this is a correlation without causation: larger towns tended to go for Clinton (and presumably Romney) and those tended to have the machines. D.L. ends however with the wise comment:
For democracy to work, the system must be transparent and maintain the confidence of its participants. Proprietary voting machines fail both these tests. American, as far as I know, are still capable of counting, so should return exclusively to the paper ballot.