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

Pay for a recount?

[pembo13]

If there is uncertainty, why does anyone (voters or the candidates) have to (directly) pay for the recount?

Proof?

[PseudoThink]

I think it only proves there's no fraud detectable by recount.

Re:Great

[Stanistani]

Given the level of mistrust about the previous two presidential elections, I think it would be only prudent to have recounts randomly throughout the process, however they are initiated.

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

I forgot to add..

[megamerican]

I also forgot to add that the so called seals on the boxes were more like post it notes. You could take them off and put them back on and no one would ever notice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
This video demonstrates how great the chain of custody was in NH. This basically proves that fraud could have easily happened and been undetectable.

"hand count matches the machine count"?

[mtgradwell]

Where do you get that from? Looking at the actual results, I see numerous instances where the initial count differs from the recount. More often than not it's just a 1 or 2 vote discrepancy, but it is pervasive. During the early stages of the recount it was being reported that getting on for 1% of the votes hadn't been counted; either the machines would ignore every 100th ballot or so, or they'd ignore a whole batch because pens with the wrong kind of ink had been used. Most of the batched errors were caught on the day of the count, but it took a recount to show up the sporadic individual errors.

Why is this important? One reason is because there is a demographic difference between hand-counted and machine-counted areas, so if you're going to disenfranchise 1% of the population in machine-counted areas, even if it's done entirely at random, that reduces the elective power of the demographic in those areas, which can tip a close election. Besides, isn't every vote supposed to be counted? Isn't that why you go and vote, because you believe that your vote will be counted? How many voters wouldn't bother if they knew it was some sort of lottery?

Another point: a partial recount will never disclose a fraud if the people choosing the areas to be recounted are also the people behind the fraud. They will simply leave the areas where the fraud took place until last, secure in the knowledge that the recount sponsor's finances or resolve will run out before the recount gets that far. And it certainly was the case that Kucinich couldn't specify exactly what was recounted. His requests for a tally of the uncast ballot papers, for instance, fell on deaf ears. So what happened to those uncast ballots? Did they get cast after all?

Proof against fraud

[HalAtWork]

Good, now we found a way to show that an election hasn't been rigged. Shouldn't we be doing this everywhere? That way if the machine is rigged, the hand count will show it. If the hand count is rigged, the machine count will show it. It's better than having a single point of failure.

Re:different demographics

[Prien715]

As for any type of voter verification, that will never happen in a Democratic primary; for some reason I can never find a legitimate rationalization for, the Democrats seems to think voter verification is equal to voter suppression.

Well, there was a recent bipartisan panel on the manner and it found that there's little actual incentive for individuals to cause voter fraud -- as one risks jail time for even voting twice -- which is unlikely to change the outcome of any election. There's also very little evidence to support that it actually happens either.

However, fraud from the people in charge of the machines or whatever is very likely, since while they risk prison time as well, they actually have the means to CHANGE an election. Consequently the panel found that requiring further voter verification is just a waste of tax money and does actually disenfranchise people too busy (not like us -- we're posting on /.!) to fulfill the requirements -- you may want to read up on your history vis a vis Jim Crow laws. Checking the counters however, seemed like a good use of time and money.

Even more interesting, is to trace the argument you make to its source, the astroturfing "American Center for Voting Rights" which conveniently disappeared last summer after the whole US attorney firings scandal (its head was involved in the Florida voting proceedings in 2000 for Bush/Cheney according to his still existent website.) Feel free to do more research online of course.

Gadfly, Nut, and Weirdo

[bill_mcgonigle]

Get over it. Ron Paul lost. He will continue to lose, because his ideas don't appeal to the majority of Americans.

Seriously? I'll bet you five dollars a majority of Americans have no clue what Ron Paul's ideas are.

Political activists, maybe, but even then > 50% is hard to believe. At least among the people I talk to, 10% have even looked at his website or heard about his policy ideas. Most of them know he's a gadfly, a nut, and a weirdo, though.