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!
Recount Proves No Fraud
Sure, or maybe everybody frauded in a self canceling way.
</double tinfoil hat>
You just got troll'd!
If there is uncertainty, why does anyone (voters or the candidates) have to (directly) pay for the recount?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I think it only proves there's no fraud detectable by recount.
Given the discrepancy, it was a good idea to check.
Those are only the democratic recounts. Also, any republican counts are write-ins. They're not all done yet.
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
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.
Fixed that for ya'.
Logic says that one can never prove a negative, and here in conspiracy land we OBEY the laws of logic.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It's time to adopt "Put Your Thumb In The Ink"
mod me funny
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.
That all the people who immediately claim "voter fraud" when they don't like the outcome of the election are delusional?
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.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
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
According to the Hillsborough County recount, which was completed, there is now a total of 46 votes less than originally counted. I can see how votes could be missed or misread and therefore not counted, but how does one actually end up with less votes?
Also, according to the NH Secretary of State, the Republican primary recount was scheduled to start yesterday, yet they've had recounted Republican votes for Hillsborough County posted on their website for almost a week now.
Sigs are for suckers.
Their recount tested the results under 9 different scenarios of how overvotes and undervotes should be counted. In 4 of the scenarios (including the scenario most consistent with contemporary FL law), Bush prevailed with more votes (woo hoo for Bush supporters!). In the remaining 5, Gore won (woo hoo for Gore supporters!).
Only a blind partisan could claim that this "proves" their point of view, especially when that wasn't even the goal of the consortium that conducted the recount!
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
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?
when all the remaining candidates are clones of each other. The war will go on. The patriot act, DMCA, etc aren't going anywhere. Censorship of the internet and tracking will continue to increase. You all can be expected to need your national ID card or an electronic bracelet or implant or tattoo if you want to leave the house. All hope of any change in course is lost until at least 2012. And if the present power structure comes under any real threat, you can bet that there will be no elections then.
What?
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.
Twinstiq, game news
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!
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.
As many other people have noted, this recount, for a wide variety of reasons, doesn't "prove no fraud" here. I'd like to add one other factor that can't be covered by any recount: people voting in precincts where they aren't eligible to vote.
Failing to count one person's vote disenfranchises that one person completely. Allowing someone to vote where/when they aren't legally supposed to disenfranchises all of us by a little bit each.
Are you missing the "could" in his statement?
-------
Incite and flee.
I thought it was a government conspiracy or something, guess not :(
Although you never know, in a year someone could cone forward and say it's a lie...
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.
/.!) 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.
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
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.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
I'm baffled that so many citizen commentators are eager to conclusively report no malfeasance in the NH primary. As a voter, I'd assume the bias of your average citizen blogger would favor transparent and closely scrutinized treatment of the recount process - not a burning desire to proclaim "All Clear!" well ahead of any reasonable period for investigation.
No, seriously, what is the incentive?
Might want to look at the recount table again:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5598
(hint: scroll to the bottom of the article)
Does the OP's "nothing to see here, move along" conclusion consider evidential violation of federal voting law vis. failure by of the NH SoS to secure machine memory cards post-election?
I realize ragging on the election system in the US, any part of it really, is popular, but this argument - in and of itself - is completely ludicrous.
"we insist on in other countries.."
Not in any WESTERN country. I can't think of a single Western, "1st world", country that has UN oversight of its elections.... and, to be honest, I can't think of a single one that would even remotely consider it.
Now, you *could* argue that the US system is so utterly broken or whatnot that UN oversight is required, but the "we insist on it in other countries" argument is just stupid.
"Mr. Slippery", indeed.
Cheesedog clearly addresses the Media Consortium examination of 175,101 ballots against 9 scenarios (Bush won 4, Gore 5). Better known are the Miami Herald and USA Today recounts, which concluded "...that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios, and in all other scenarios." Quote is from here. While you might hate the end results, the post-election recounts are nowhere near as clear, or as favorable to Gore, as you represent them.
Based on the link you yourself provide, this is at best disingenuous. The link references the opening statements of a trial in which three people are accused of violating election laws (the story is dated 6 days earlier than your post). Apparently, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a concept to which you subscribe. I hope that few others here are so filled with hatred for Bush that they toss out basic due process for election workers as you have done.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Here is one of the more incredible accounts.
I guess maybe punchscan has it right...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The issue of "requested recount scenarios" is not the point; that's an issue of game strategy, figuring out which recounts to ask for. The issue is the actual number of ballots cast for Bush and Gore, all throughout the state, does not match the results of the "election".
The Wikipedia article's statement about "all other scenarios" is simply inaccurate (I've fixed it):
The study in question also counted only undervotes. Over-votes, where a voter clearly expressed their intention by both marking the ballot and writing in the same candidate, gave Gore many additional votes.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
According to the people who DO like the outcome of the election, yes.
Why, yes, they did find different results depending on which ballots were counted.
Calling for recounts only in some areas is part gaming the system, and is irrelevant to the question of for whom more Florida voters cast their ballots. Those recounts that do not have as their standard a "clear indication of the intent of the voter" are irrelevant.
A statewide recounts where all undervotes and overvotes were considered is the only relevant issue here. Under five different criteria of "clear indicaton of the voter", Gore comes out ahead on four of them, only losing in one where subjective factors of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots come into play.
In Florida in 2000, more voters went to the polls intending to vote for Gore than for Bush; despite intimidation and illegal purges of the voter rolls, more voters got to the voting booth intending to vote for Gore; and despite bad balloting technology and practices (which disproportionately affected poor neighborhoods, making a mockery of "equal protection"), more voters voted for Gore than voted for Bush. The fact that Bush was declared the "winner" shows that the voting system was broken; nothing significant has been done to resolve the problems, and indeed they seem to have gotten worse in many ways.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
That's a year and six days.
They were in fact convicted, and that's the link I should have given.
However, I see on further review that they made a plea deal and got probation. Which shows how important protecting election integrity is - mandatory minimums for possession of illegal medicines, a slap on the wrist for subverting democracy. Res ipsa loquitur, as HST used to say.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
No disagreement there. Gore, and the spineless wreck that is the Democratic Party since Clinton ruined it, played the game poorly, from the campaign through the recounts. They should have beaten Bush so badly that the election would have been beyond stealing, but Gore's failure to distinguish himself from Bush made his lead small enough to cheat.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Again quoting from your link (first sentence):
"More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested."
I'm sorry your preferred candidate lost - but he lost. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with a mere 43% of the popular vote - but he won. You need to learn to let go.
Best wishes.
Ok, let me try this one more time.
One more time: the issue of what would have happened under the recounts Gore requested is an issue of game strategy and is irrelevant.
The issue is that a complete recount using the "clear intent of the voter" standard - i.e., actually counting how many ballots each candidate received - would have had a different outcome.
Yes, I would have preferred Gore - to the same extent that I prefer a kick to the groin to a hot poker in the eye. Far beyond my desire for a lesser of two evils, though, is a desire for a system that might, just might, produce a non-evil result. Reliable elections are a prerequisite for this. (Better ballot access and better forms of ballots, such as instant runoff voting, are also prerequisites.) Sensible court decisions when disputes arise are also a requirement, and certainly Bush v Gore wasn't one.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
There is a voter fraud watchdog group that has done in depth investigation and created a documentary (http://cre8ive-design.net/blog/?cat=7) that proves that the way the recounts are performed are meaningless, unless all the votes are counted. Election officials pre-sort ballots by candidate, choose the quantity of ballots for each candidate that supports the official numbers, and provides the pre-selected ballots to the vote re-counters. This was admitted on tape by the election officials. This documentary also contains other evidence that captures on tape election official discarding actual signed poll tapes (from the machines), and when compared to the "officially released numbers" from the same machines, the numbers never match. Further, this documentary conclusively shows how easy it is to hack and manipulate the voting machines and explains fairly convincingly why there are so many anomalies and why Ron Paul never gets a fair shake in the votes. WAKE UP AMERICA!
OK, I'll try one more time, too. Bush v Gore was decided on the basis that elections results are calculated using the rules established prior to the election, not after the election. "Clear intent of the voter" was not (and is not) the established precedent in Florida, but rather "how the voter voted".
Feel free to advocate changing the standard, but only between elections.
(BTW, "clear intent of the voter" sounds suspiciously like "how those with power think the voter intended to vote". I believe that's an incredibly dangerous standard for any election.)
So your claim is that the thousands of dead, illegal, and ineligible voters who show up at every US election have had no impact on any outcome.
And how can you be charged with voter fraud when there is no requirement to even prove you are who you say you are? For anyone who wants to stack the numbers in any district all that they require is a bus and some willing (paid or unpaid) participants (I hear you can even pay in crack). For that matter as long as you vote in different precincts you can forgo the bus and do it yourself.
New York State alone has over 77,000 people on their voter rolls who are legally dead (some are just technical issues but still that should make them legally ineligible to vote until corrected) yet there is no control to prevent anyone from claiming to be them and casting a vote, especially using the absentee ballot process. People are on record having admitted they've voted in their dead spouse/parent's names; usually by write in but even some in person.
Every election the news is filled with voter fraud stories from all over the US and pretty much every case that is proven involves old fashioned fraud and not electronic.
And thank you for attributing my argument to some organization I've never heard of instead of to the nightly news and various news papers which have covered the attempts by Democratic officials and operatives across the country to prevent any type of voter ID requirement law from passing. But hey, I guess actually answering the question as to how it services a democracy by not requiring some form of validation of those participating in the process is too tough. Even in the Iraq elections they realized that 1 person 1 vote was such a fundamental concern to a democratic process that they willingly marked themselves, at risk of their own lives, to ensure a accurate election. Maybe the States can adopt the thumb and dye approach, at least then there is still no ID requirement.
Of course what do I know, I'm from a country whose government actually takes it upon itself to send people door to door to register voters and requires some form of ID to be presented at the polls. I can't even remember the last voter fraud story to make national headlines here. Dirty politicians sure, but voter fraud, just can't think of one.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
So that leaves us with the stark reality that there will always be sampling error and noise in a process where 6 million people from all walks of life are required to show up during a set amount of time, stand in line, and follow specific instructions to operate equipment that only they see once a year to cast their vote. Efforts to mitigate and minimize this noise should be applauded and pursued, but the noise itself will never be eliminated. This is precisely why concrete rules must be put in place prior to an election, and why those rules must be followed to determine the winner of the election. The fact that the election was close does not change the rules. I guess you could claim that this means the system is "broken", but I notice that you didn't suggest any alternatives, so I am betting its just a case of you being a sore loser because you didn't like the outcome.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush