New Hampshire Primaries Follow-Up Analysis

Dr. Eggman writes "Ars Technica has posted a lengthy follow up analysis of the 2008 New Hampshire Primaries outcome. The article deals with the O'Dell machine/hand-count table that has been circulating through emails. It also points out the combination of factors that resulted in such an odd symmetry of numbers, although the article notes that these numbers have been corrected. The corrections still indicate a discrepancy among the tallies. The article also goes on to talk about the nature of the communities that arrived at these numbers and what/how the handcounts proceeds. This process has been inconclusive; something that does not bode well for the rest of the primaries and indeed the election itself, as only 16 states currently mandate both a voter-verified paper trail (VVPT) and a random manual audit of election results."

Re:doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the difficulty of changing the outcome of an election. It's getting away with it.

Re:doesn't matter

[enjahova]

Your candidate of choice would still need to get on the ballot.

Re:doesn't matter

[spun]

That's not insightful. You need to convince the citizens that the outcome is legitimate or there will be rioting in the streets. Tampering with ballots preserves the illusion of legitimacy. Buying electoral college votes puts the fraud right out in the open, it's basically a big "fuck you!" to the American people. That's the last thing anyone in power wants, the entire electorate questioning their legitimacy.

Re:doesn't matter

[schnikies79]

Most states give all electoral votes to whoever won the popular vote in that state. You can't just "buy" a few votes.

Faithless electors aren't so common, or always leg

[stomv]

Faithless electors [wikipedia.org] can be punished in 24 states. Furthermore, most electoral college voters are established party faithful -- it'd cost an awful lot of money to start swinging their votes since their political career would be destroyed.

At $1 million each, buying enough would cost $270 million. For that kind of money, why not just run for president and sink it in your campaign like Mitt Romney. How many politically connected folks would throw away their career, their connections, and their source of future income for less than a mil?

Re:doesn't matter

[moderatorrater]

That's retarded sir. You'd have to be within a vote or two to actually pull it off, since states can make their representatives sign a contract stating that they'll vote the way the state wants them to vote. If a significant number of electoral college members were to break lines and vote against their state, there'd be massive investigations. You'd also (as mentioned by a sibling) have to get on the ballot in the first place and come close enough that you wouldn't be bribing too many people.

So, if you're willing to risk a few years in jail, the complete destruction of the party that got you close enough to be able to bid your way out of it, and public scorn for decades, you're right, it is conceivably cheaper.

We're talking about Primaries here...

[ShatteredArm]

Before you can even bring the EC into play, you have to actually win the party nomination. And to do that, you have to win the primaries (still not the popular vote, though). And the best way to win the primaries (or to not lose them) is to win one of the first couple of states. I don't think NH was "rigged" by any means, but the motive is certainly there. Obama was riding the wave of popularity, and it may have gotten a little out of hand had he beaten Clinton in NH. She always has the advantage with the superdelegates, but if she doesn't win anything before Feb. 5, she'll have a hard time convincing enough people to vote for her. So winning NH was a great way for her to not only stay in the race but reestablish her position as frontrunner.

Now it probably won't do her much good to go and rig the vote in Nebraska or North Dakota...

Re:doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not insightful. You need to convince the citizens that the outcome is legitimate or there will be rioting in the streets. Tampering with ballots preserves the illusion of legitimacy. Buying electoral college votes puts the fraud right out in the open, it's basically a big "fuck you!" to the American people. That's the last thing anyone in power wants, the entire electorate questioning their legitimacy.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where George Bush Jr was elected? The people of America rolled over and took it. Where were the riots? If there were any, what effect did they have?

No! No! Shut up!

[StarKruzr]

Just talking about election fraud is tired old conspiracy-theory mongering! Election fraud never happens! Bush really did win! When you claim election fraud, the terrorists win! Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor! That does not make sense!

I really hate how having the idea that a group of people ever sat down to do something bad or dishonest together is immediate cause to be branded a lunatic.

Re:doesn't matter

[s20451]

Buying electoral college votes puts the fraud right out in the open, it's basically a big "fuck you!" to the American people.

Well, given that most people wouldn't mind having their vote bought [foxnews.com], it's not so insulting to most people as you might imagine.

The article at the link suggests that a majority of NYU students would give up their right to vote for $1 million. Supposing you could scale that up to the size of the population, for 1/2 * (population of USA) * $1,000,000 = $151 trillion, you could obtain a slate of candidates in each state legislature who would agree to any constitutional amendment you wished to propose.

Given that the GDP of the USA is $13 trillion, that's a reasonably attractive leveraged buyout -- you would earn back your investment in 12 years or so.

Re:doesn't matter

[SuperBanana]

That's not insightful. You need to convince the citizens that the outcome is legitimate or there will be rioting in the streets. Tampering with ballots preserves the illusion of legitimacy. Buying electoral college votes puts the fraud right out in the open, it's basically a big "fuck you!" to the American people.

You forgot that when you're caught committing fraud (or caught for being completely incompetent), you haul the court system into it. Then, no matter how pissed people are, you can blow them off by saying, "sorry, the courts say *I* won."

Re:doesn't matter

[timster]

The GDP is GROSS domestic product. Someone who "owned" the US wouldn't be able to pull a profit anywhere close to $13 trillion per year. The slaves have to eat something.

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[TheSeventh]

This was on the news, and was attributed to 'human error'. Meaning some nonagenarian didn't bother to report those because there was literally a handful (or less).

And supporting Ron Paul is great and idealistic and all, but a complete waste. He has 0% chance of winning anything, especially after those racist newsletters came out with his name on them, regardless if he wrote them.

You don't even need push-polling to destroy him, the media already took care of that, and you can't "un-do" negative publicity like that before the election.

Still trying to vote for him might be loyal, but even the Captain abandons ship once everyone else has left.

Re:doesn't matter

[spun]

66% of NYU students, many of whom probably don't vote anyway, is not "most people." And GDP is gross domestic product. Not net.

anyone who cant steal an election ...

[peter303]

doesnt deserve to be President. Its a time-honored skill we've come to expect in our politicians!

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[Hatta]

Voting for the status quo is an even bigger waste.

Re:doesn't matter

[susano_otter]

The Electoral College mitigates the effects of mob rule, which is exactly what it's supposed to do. It gives the least-populous states slightly more power than they would otherwise have, and gives the most-populous states stlightly less power than they would otherwise have. I don't see it as "screwing" anybody out of the Presidency at all. The issue only arises in closely-contested elections where one or both candidates are having difficulty appealing to a broad majority of different regional voter blocs. North Dakota's Electors rarely matter, but when they do, and you fail to sway a majority of North Dakotans...

Re:Big Story Ignored

[Hatta]

Even if you discount any possible voting fraud something stinks here. Every news outlet across the country has reported NH as a win for Clinton. Yet, both Clinton and Obama won 9 delegates from NH. That my friends is a tie, but I have not heard one news outlet report that fact.

2012 only four years away. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Things are getting more interesting by the day.

I've heard that the whole 2012 thing is a bit of a bugaboo, that nothing is quite so clockwork; that time is somewhat squishy. --Or as the Doctor put it, "Timey-Whymie".

Still. . , as looming and catastrophic endings/beginnings go, the milestones keep piling up, don't they? --And they have an interesting story to tell to anybody who is paying attention.

The U.S. goose is cooked, and there doesn't seem to be anything anybody can do to stop it. People are too far gone and the lunatics are running the show. So what do you do?

--It's important to remember that the real battle is the inner one. Your perceptions and personal alignment are what count. You have to pick a side; service to self or service to others. Sitting on the fence now means another trip on the merry-go-round, and a new dark age is where it all begins again on this big blue marble; huddling in a cave while the cold wind whistles under red skies. There are other places to be if you can keep it together. Dissolve the ego, integrate your shadow self, (we all have stuff we don't want to face or deal with, which we all just want to go away; integrate it and accept it and it will stop be the monster in the closet). So do not judge and be open to transformation.

Do the best you can. Love yourself. Follow that inner guidance system in your belly, follow your real passions, treat people with love and respect and don't let the fear get to you. It's going to get more 'interesting' before the dust settles. Remember; you signed up for this amusement park attraction because this hot spot in the galaxy is the place to be. You're lucky to be here, so pay attention and have fun with your time on this world. And remember, as Bill Hicks put it, "It's all just a ride". [youtube.com]

-FL

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[rkanodia]

I don't like Ron Paul, but I find it appalling that he can't get a single mention in the big news channels without being referred to as 'fringe candidate Ron Paul'. If Ron Paul is a 'fringe candidate', what does that make Fred Thompson - some lint under the carpet?

Re:Big Story Ignored

[arodland]

Probably because Clinton won in the way that matters. Look, nobody cares about the delegates. They matter, but they're really insignificant on a large scale. What the primary is about is the media event, the chance to establish momentum, and all that. If one candidate gets a couple percentage points more than another and the primary process says that comes to the same number of delegates, that's fine. But if the media event wants to call that a victory, that's fine as well. They're two separate playing fields that happen to depend on the same votes.

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[ConceptJunkie]

The status quo has a lot to gain by suppressing the idea that he has a lot of support because he's the only candidate that _doesn't_ represent some permutation of the status quo, which every other candidate not only supports but is heavily invested in. The whole corrupt, corporacratic (or "coprocratic?") edifice of the Republican and Democrat parties comes crashing down if the notion begins to percolate in Joe Twelvepack's head that there are real alternatives and that it isn't inevitable that our country will disintegrate under the twin anchors of the industrial-military complex and geometrically increasing entitlements.

Re:No! No! Shut up!

[Omestes]

Yes. Even paranoiacs are right some percentage of the time. But, probably not this time. Or at least I haven't seen any reason to dust off my tin-foil hat yet. Its just the usual election SNAFU action, there is no need to confuse gross incompetence for conspiracy, the former covers most things pretty well.

What gets me is that the media is choosing yet another president. No conspiracy there, just morons voting. Democracy depends on an informed public, which is antithetical to the modern American way of life.
 

Re:doesn't matter

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

Can we PLEASE stop this nonsense about a "popular vote" for US President? There simply IS NO popular vote, at least not on a national level.

Yes there is - it's the total number of individual votes. You are correct that the winner of the "popular vote" may not be the winner of the election.

Whoever it was that started adding up the state-by-state vote counts and calling it the "popular vote" should be shot.

I think this has been done since the first presidential election, so whoever it was is probably already dead.

In any case, in the US, there IS NO popular vote, so wasting time talking about it is just wasting time.

No, it is not a waste of time. Pointing out inconsistencies in the system can help improve the system.

According to the Electoral College [wikipedia.org] page on Wikipedia there have only been four times [wikipedia.org] out of fifty five [wikipedia.org] that the candidate with the most popular votes lost the election. So it's not really a rampant problem but maybe there are still a few adjustments to be made.

Re:doesn't matter

[immcintosh]

Well, you could easily flip that around and say that the effect of the Electoral College is to make some peoples' votes more meaningful than others because they live in sparsely populated areas. Should a person in the middle of a sparse state such as Montana naturally have more say (admittedly only more to a very small degree) than a person in Los Angeles?

The tyranny of the majority is ALWAYS an inherent problem in democracy--probably the greatest flaw in this system of elections. All the Electoral College does is shift around how you define the majority by weighting the value of some peoples votes more highly than others. It'll still always be "mob rule," just with a different mob.

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[kcbrown]

If they'd forgotten Thompson and Guilliani, I might agree, but given the evidence, there seems to be a concerted effort to keep Paul from running at all.

What else did you expect? The media is owned by very few (two or three) very large corporations, and large corporations love corporate control over the government because it gives them more power. And you can be sure the media does deals with other large corporations that share the same goals for the same reasons.

Ron Paul is an anathema to people/corporations who want corporate control over the government. So naturally he can't be allowed to win. The media will use all its influence to make sure that the person who wins the Presidency is a corporate stooge just like his/her last few predecessors.

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[LeoDavinci578]

Mod parent up. Voting for the candidate who the media says can win is essentially selling your vote to the corporations that run the media.

Re:doesn't matter

[TimTheFoolMan]

The effect of the Electoral College is that smaller jurisdictions MUST be considered when campaigning. Otherwise, a candidate would just hit a dozen major metro areas and they'd have the numerical advantage sewed up.

Instead, they have to take into consideration (somewhat) what happens in KY, WY, and MT, even though these states don't have enough numerical population to make a significant diff without the EC.

Elections are one of the most visible embodiments of state's rights. As long as my state doesn't violate federally guaranteed rights, we can make all the weirdo election laws we want, or choose our reps for the EC by flipping a coin. It's up to my state to determine these things, and the other states can't say (or do) squat about it. - Tim

Re:doesn't matter

[N3WBI3]

Should a person in the middle of a sparse state such as Montana naturally have more say (admittedly only more to a very small degree) than a person in Los Angeles?

Given the fact we are a federation of states... YES

Minor problems? WTF

[DrJimbo]

OSCE found the US elections to have only some minor problems, ...

The 2004 presidential election was decided by a few key battleground states, most notably Ohio. Oddly enough there were strange exit poll discrepancies [appliedresearch.us] in many of these states including Ohio where the outcome in hinged on less than 20,000 votes. Due to a host of peculiarities, a recount was ordered in Cuyahoga County. Last year the two people who performed that recount, Jacqueline Maiden and Kathleen Dreamer were convicted of negligent misconduct [washingtonpost.com] for rigging the recount [mindfully.org]:

They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said.

They were recently sentenced to 18 months in prison. The judge gave them the maximum because he did not believe their story that they were acting alone.

Let's recap:

• Many states (such as NH and Ohio) still count votes using machines with secret sauce source code that have been proved to be trivial to crack, making it easy for a single person to alter the outcome of an entire election.
• The media via a private company have conspired to keep the raw exit poll data secret (see first link above) so it can't be used to check the official results.
• A recount was ordered in one of the states that could possibly change the overall winner of the entire election but that recount was rigged and the ballots were destroyed so we have no idea of who actually won.

This is not proof the election was rigged, if the votes had been honestly recounted they may have matched the official results. But why on earth would the two official in charge of the recount go to the trouble and risk of rigging it if they thought the election was honest? Unfortunately we'll never know if it was honest or not. Never knowing if the outcome of an election was actually fair seems to be more than just a minor problem.

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The racist reports are proven hogwash. There is no connection to Paul, Paul denies it, others who have known Paul in the past state that it doesn't match his history, the wording doesn't match what Paul has put out in the past, and Paul's history of voting and of public behavior don't match the racist comments.

Re:what about the fraud with Ron Paul votes?

[ChrisMaple]

Never have American rights been more trampled on than during the current administration.

Whisky rebellion.

Slavery, up through the Civil War.

Internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in WWII.

Military draft at various times until ended by Nixon.

Did you fail to think of these things before posting, or are you just ignorant?

Re:Wake up...

[moxley]

I think when you look at the whole picture, at exit polls (which are reliable in general and which are the standard both the US and UN use to determine when elections are "free and fair" in other countries), and at what happened in the 2000 and especially in the 2004 races I think it is pretty clear that some sort of tampering is involved.

Media consolidation is a massive problem, with this I agree with you - and I think that when you look at Ron Paul's open market theories you have to keep in mind that I don;t think he is referring to the public airwaves, and his idea of a free market would be a true free market - not the sort of artifical, protected forced markets we see so much in the US. Also, I think that the media consolidation is as much a symptom of the problem as a perpetuator of it. The scary thing is that most Americans have no idea that pretty much everything they read and see on TV is controlled by 5 corporations who can lie, distort and manipulate (pretty much with impunity).

With that said, I support both Kucinich and Paul because I think they are the only ones who will restore the government of this country to constitutionality and are the only ones who aren't corporatist shills and frontmen for special interests; personaly I would love to see universal health care, something I am sure makes Paul cringe (although his way would probably work much better than what we have now because it's not necessarily the market that has made things such a mess).

I think we're headed into extremely dark times - but I hope not.

The news is just another show...disgustingly true, and referenced in some good songs as well....so I guess this is why I get my news and entertainment elsewhere.