We tried to warn you.

Apparent miscount for Romney makes Iowa announcement premature.

Looks like Santorum did win after all. They counted wrong. Go figure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/iowa-caucus-2012-results_n_1188074.html

Let me tell you something kiddies. The 'Establishment' candidates are no strangers to vote counting tomfoolery. Not saying this was intentional- just sayin.
Recall Bush, Sr. who backed Romney was with the CIA early in his career which
engineered the rise and fall of regimes through vote rigging. His friends in high places knew how to 'deliver' the votes in 2004 to his son, only with electronic sophistocation you couldn't imagine has even been yet invented. This is just the preview. Recall the head of the largest voting machinery company in the country saying in Ohio in a letter he could "deliver" for Bush in 2004. Ask Bob Fritakis Clint Curtis, or John Conyers or Peter Peckarsky all about it.

When you look at your telecommand clicker do you understand how some device five feet away from an object can turn the tv on or off? Ponder that. Now ponder the ability of someone who has programmed voting machinery to turn on and off a program that flips votes that no one would ever know or discover because they also have the ability to know when it is being test run so keep it off when its only test run. We have 'closed source code' voting meaning, you don't get to inspect, and no independent body gets to inspect the source software coding on proprietary voting machinery. Its all a 'trade secret."

Auditability, Transparency, Reliability Testability. If your voting machinery is none of the above, you have a chimera of a democracy.
I prefer counting handwritten postits manually under the eye of a camera.

The election could be stolen in this country again. No one would be the wiser and no one would doubt the results this time because of the approval ratings and state of the economy. The system is still frighteningly defective. It's not skeptical to say so, it's ignorant not to get it.