Recount Proves No Fraud In NH Primary

murdocj writes "You can take off those tinfoil hats, because the recount results of the NH Primary are in, and the hand count matches the machine count. Everyone can now move on to the conspiracy around the Texas flying saucer. In fact, only 40% of the vote was recounted (that's all that Dennis Kucinich was willing to pay for), but that 40% shows that the machine and hand counts match up nicely. As was pointed out when this 'story' broke, areas that have machine counting tend to have different demographics than hand-counted areas, and thus a difference in voting patterns."

Comments

Sure..

[4D6963]

Recount Proves No Fraud

Sure, or maybe everybody frauded in a self canceling way.

</double tinfoil hat>

Re:Sure..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet that the fraudulently created ballots were counted for the second time giving the same results.

Re:Pay for a recount?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people will refuse to accept reality no matter how many facts you shove in their faces.
Sounds like one of the tenets of /.

"Recount Proves NH Election Fraud Undetectable"

[R2.0]

Fixed that for ya'.

Logic says that one can never prove a negative, and here in conspiracy land we OBEY the laws of logic.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Legitimacy of the power wielded by the Chief Executive should be widely accepted.

I'll never accept it! I'm an anarchist! The only Chief Executive who tells me what to do is me!

<To self>: I'll never accept you as my master! I'm an anarchist! The only Chief Executive who tells me what to do is me!

<To self>: <To self>: I'll never accept you as my master! I'm an anarchist! The only Chief Executive who tells me what to do is me!

Re:Great

[Stanistani]

You give a newer, fresher definition to the term "loopy." :)

Re:Proof?

[Applekid]

Unit tests cannot prove there are no bugs, rather, proves the existance of a subset of possible bugs. I'd imagine a recount to be akin to those.

"Prove" is such a strong word. How about Proofiness?