Kos and DHinMI have both weighed in on the hubub on the front page. Frankly, on whether or not there is a "there" there, I agree with them that this will likely amount to nothing. Where I disagree with them is about whether or not it is a waste of time making sure of that.
Follow me over the fold where I will follow a time honored tradition of letting a more talented writer express what I feel by quoting him.
First, in what is undoubtedly bad style, I provide a couple of short quotes from this post on ArsTechnica before I provide commentary (emphasis in original):
Ron Paul and his supporters may be a bit loopy, but they are 100 percent correct in insisting on some type of audit of the NH results—not because Hillary hacked the vote (I currently think there are better explanations for the results than vote hacking), but because such audits should always occur as a matter of course. Again, when you use an electronic voting system, you must audit the results if you want to have confidence in them.
[...]
In a truly democratic election, the burden of proof is on the state to provide evidence of the election's integrity. This sentiment is behind the idea that ballots should be counted under the watchful eyes of the public's representatives. So elections are held to a much different standard than criminal proceedings, where the burden of proof is on the one who brings a charge of wrongdoing.
Right now, in the absence of an audit of the New Hampshire results, the state has not met the requirement that it prove to the public that the election was fair. This is what the fuss is about. New Hampshire does not have the manual audit requirement that is necessary to prove that an election was fair, so that state's ballots were effectively counted in secret by closed-source machine code. When ballots are counted in secret and it's up to the voters to prove that the election was rigged when they're surprised by the results, that's not the kind of democracy that the Founders had in mind for us.
Quite frankly, never auditing the vote count is like not having a cop on the beat - the fact that he's there doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks everyone around him is guilty, more he's there to dissuade trouble because people who committ crimes are more likely to get caught if there's a cop on the lookout for them. Now, in the age before votes were tallied electronically and it was much harder to tamper with the election results in a significant way, we might have gotten away with that. As soon as you have electronically tallied votes, where the vote machine is hackable regardless of whether it's touchscreen or not, it is downright foolishness to not have public audits in at least some randomly chosen fraction of the electorate to catch and dissuade wrongdoing.
Stokes continues on to point out that this is nothing compared to what will happen in the main election of Clinton is our candidate, and he's right. I mean, do you honestly think that movement conservatives who have painted Hillary as an anti-Christ who killed Vince Foster and eats babies for breakfast would hesitate to whip up an enormous media storm in an attempt to make Hillary look like Joseph Stalin? They call her "Hitlery" for crying out loud, of course they'll accuse her of stealing the election whether or not it's close.
Mandatory audits of every election is the only way to go.