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."
First of all, the Republican ballots haven't been counted yet. Secondly, Kucinich ran out of money so not all of the ballots on the Democratic side were counted. Not only that, but the chain of custody for the ballots was severely lacking. It would be alomst impossible to prove fraud when you can't fully account for where the ballots were and everyone who had custody of them. There were lots of discrepencies in the diebold counted places. Simply check out http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ and http://www.bradblog.com/ and you'll see how incredibly bad NH was.
The Republican ballots won't even have started to be counted for a few days. More money was donated to the 3rd party candidate to make the recount (mostly Ron Paul supporters through the Granny Warriors). There were at least two cities in NH that reported 0 votes for Ron Paul, then magically found them the next day when it was pointed out to them that people voted for him there (all by accident, of course).
The fact that the diebold ballots were so far off is very troubling, considering they make ATM's which don't miss a penny and are virtually fraud proof (not to mention there is a paper trail). LHS Associates, who counted 81% of the votes in NH also have an executive who was convicted of narcotics trafficking. It was also LHS Associates who handled a lot of the ballots after the voting was done. They can't use the Fry defense "Don't blame me, I'm a non-voting felon." They're vote counting felons.
Anyone who gets their votes counted through a Diebold machine should get stickers saying "I think I voted."
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
They "lost" the diebold memory cards, and there's already documentation of different precincts with highly strange results. And the secstate there stated kucinich was satisfied with the results, even though in a letter to him he clearly says he wasn't, and you can find the letter and the couinbter statements online to see that. The secstate there right off the bat looks to be lying. The system is *rigged*, and it isn't just in New Hampshire either. Some ballot boxes-used freaking cardboard boxes used to transport the ballots for the recount-showed evidence of being compromised, by being cut open during transit someplace, even the so called "seals" were peel and stick phony baloney "seals", not even any sort of permanent tape. That right there is enough to demand a completely new election if you ask me.
The submitter is wrong,completely 100% full of crap, hasn't been paying enough attention during the past week, can't look at evidence and add it up, or is part of a disinfo campaign by parroting some stooge coverup BS. The published results as they are up there now appear to have been tampered with, and with the memory cards "lost" there is NO WAY to run a real recount because there is nothing verifiable to compare them to, and no way to verify if there was any tampering during the election or pre election or right after the election. In short, this recount is a dog and pony show designed on purpose to be a propaganda fake out, to make it "look" like they are doing it. And even if the memory cards show up, the chain of custody was completely compromised so you would have no way of verifying if what is on them was tampered with or not, and losing them is a clear cut violation of election laws. That guy needs to be impeached / prosecuted just over that.
Further, given the metric crapload of money candidates already spend/waste on campaigning, you'd think there would be a system in place to skim off a percentage towards recounts. Election insurance, as it were.
Why the hell not? You're voting to give these clowns the right to skim money off *your* income for their pork barrel projects...
Worse yet, I don't even believe New Hampshire requires you to be a resident to vote in their primaries, only that you "intend" to move there sometime in the future.
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.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
those 56% of the people are complacent retards who aren't even trying to improve the process.
How can you "improve the process" when neither of the two choices available to you are worthy leaders? How can you "improve the process" when any votes for someone that isn't a party tool are so marginalized that not counting them is so easily written off (why the fuck would you be rounding votes anyhow?)
There can be no uncertainty over ballots not even cast. Nice strawman.
Ok, who do I vote for that will get us out of Iraq? 40% of the voters want the to pull the troops out but none of the viable candidates are providing that as part of their platform. So that 40% has no one to vote for. The majority of the times that I vote, it's a vote against a particularly bad candidate. If candidate A really really sucks, then I vote candidate B. I'm not actually excited about having candidate B leading my country, but I get counted as a "supporter". My congressional district is so gerrymandered that it doesn't matter who I vote for, so if I'm busy (I often work two jobs) on election day there might well be better uses of my time than registering my ignored, rounded down token of dissatisfaction. What percentage of people that you know actually feel well represented in our government? Among my acquaintances that would be below 25%.
The republican count is the one I'm interested in. Like the districts where Ron Paul got 0 votes, but multiple people report having voted for him. Good luck trying to explain that.
Even if it wasn't intentional fraud, I'm scared of a system where less-popular candidates are hurt. If a major candidate loses 100 votes, it might not even be statistically significant (unless it's a really close race). If a grassroots candidate loses 100 votes and shows up as "0", the election is broadcasting to all that everybody wanted one of the majority candidates to win. Way to maintain the status quo, guys.