Slashdot Mirror
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."
When your security procedures are this lax, anything can happen.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
It varies from state-to-state, but typically it works like this: If an election is very close (within the margin of error of the vote tallying method), an automatic recount is done, and is payed for by the state. Any candidate can request a recount for any reason if they are willing to pay for it in the case the election did not fall into the automatic recount scenario.
I left out why recounts are costly: The State Employees who do the recounting have to skip out on their regular job duties until the recount is done. In highly contested cases where lawyers and party representatives are bickering over every ballot, it can become a huge time sink.
This particular recount was requested by a democrat and was targetted to demo ballots.
Ron Paul never claimed there was a NH problem. They released a statement that claimed their counts and internal polls jibed with the reported results and that any discrepencies were innocent.
Until a media consortium hired independent assessors to evaluate the ballots, and found that the Gore got more than Bush votes in Florida in 2000.
As for Ohio, people went to jail for rigging the recount.
Which demonstrates that official recounts of a limited number of ballots may not tell the whole story.
The U.S. electoral system is no more reliable than that of the Ukraine or Kenya. But Americans are much more complacent about it.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"Uncertainty" according to whose standard?
It's pretty easy when you look at the vote tallies for your county and see that the candidate you voted for is showing zero votes. That makes it obvious that the original count is wrong. It's difficult to spot shifting vote numbers once the numbers get higher, which is why we need UN election oversight. This is a measure we insist on in other countries but yet refuse in our own. Uncertainty is when you vote is being counted by black box machines made by a company that employs know felons in key management areas. Strangely the people put in power by this voting system, don't want the system to change, funny that. True election reform which would break us out of our dysfunctional two party system, such as approval voting or instant runoff voting will never pass through a legislature put in power by a strong two party system. Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices.
We are all just people.
Here is one of the more incredible accounts.
I guess maybe punchscan has it right...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)