I'm not an expert on this, but is there an obvious explanation for why Obama had a 7.5 percent advantage over Clinton in New Hampshire votes counted by hand and Clinton had a 5.5 percent advantage in votes counted by machine? I presume that it's a function of differing locations, with the more urban Clinton districts relying more on machines. Is that the right inference?
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/by-hand-or-diebold/221503/
