Recount Proves No Fraud In NH Primary 96
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."
Yeah, well (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah, well (Score:2)
Vote Recount is a Fraud - WAKE UP AMERICA! (Score:1)
Sure.. (Score:5, Funny)
Recount Proves No Fraud
Sure, or maybe everybody frauded in a self canceling way.
</double tinfoil hat>
Re:Sure.. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Sure.. (Score:2)
On http://www.sos.nh.gov/recounthills.htm [nh.gov]
In Nashua Ward 5 Clinton gained 71 votes (out of a about a thousand, a 7% difference)
In Manchester Ward 10 Clinton lost 10 votes (of out about a 900)
Anyways in total of all precients in which she gained votes she gained 163 votes (this is just one county in the state)
In total of all precient in which she lost votes she lost 103.
Leading to a net change of 59 votes.
Re:Sure.. (Score:2)
Pay for a recount? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Some people will refuse to accept reality no matter how many facts you shove in their faces.
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:1, Funny)
Sounds like one of the tenets of
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:5, Informative)
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. [rense.com] 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. [house.gov] 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. [wired.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] or instant runoff voting [wikipedia.org] 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. [hnn.us]
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:1, Interesting)
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 [cbsnews.com] 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%.
Say what? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:1)
First let me say, I TOTALLY agree with you that the election system is shot. It has been - the two party system is a joke and the way we vote is a joke (Voting should start across the US at say 7am ET and end 7am ET the next day AND should be on a weekend. The press should not be allowed to report exit polls until the election is finished - the speed in which they can do this has a DEFINITE effect on voting patterns. It's crazy that 1% of the votes can be in a voting district and they declare a winner) It's the UN part that is insane.
We are NOT like other countries that we push for election oversight on and I'm sick and damn tired of everyone trying to invoke some sort of moral equiavalence on this sort of thing. Hugo Chavez is a nut bug trying his best to become a dictator in a 'quasi-legal' manner. The level of fraud that he and other third world dicators are willing to use is way beyond anything that can occur here. You aren't going to see anyone getting away with mass death threats or anything like that over here. THAT is what the UN is SUPPOSE be making sure doesn't happen.
The sort of fraud that may or may not go on in the US is much more subtle and much harder to prove. If the the dems/reps could prove the reps/dems were doing fraund, do you think for ONE SECOND they wouldn't jump all over it? Seriously? With the level of outright insane hatred that the liberals have against conservatives these days? The PR coup that either side could win if outright fraud could be proven....
As far as the UN, they couldn't over see a high school election much less one with the complexity of ours (or apparently any third world one for that matter). The UN is simply a soap box for every two-bit wannabe dictator to take pot shots at the US. It has long since become useless. (Do I REALLY have to re-invoke the ol' human rights council where some of the biggest violators still reside?) When you have the likes of that moron Jimmy Carter running around the world rubber stamping bogus elections to prevent bloodshed, what hope is there that the UN is going to give the US a fair shake. It never does now. I can't wait to see if good ol' Carter backs that idiot Chavez - I'm surpised he didn't manage to win the 'president for life' election. I suppose any open fraud on that would have been obvious.
So please - the UN isn't an answer for much of anything anymore. IMHO, we should cease funding it - it hasn't managed to do anything useful in years (besides line the pockets of the people invovled with it).
EK
P.S. Why isn't there a spell checker?
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:1)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
How could you not understand that it takes LOTS of time to recount ballots (are you too young to remember the Florida recount?), and that it must be done by existing state elections employees, and that people who are doing Job B can't also be simultaneously be doing their normal Job A, and so the backlog of Job A piles up?
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Also, if the recount proves that original result was wrong, the candidate will not be charged with a timeout.
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Of course, there was a court challenge, but the only thing that did was knock a few fraudulent votes off the Republican candidate's total.
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Re:Pay for a recount? (Score:2)
Now the recounts are only paid for by the state/city when the margin of victory is less then the statistical error rate. In most cases this is less the 5% or some is even 1%. Most jurisdictions have an automatic recount if the elections are so close. And generally, if a mistake was found during the recount, the candidate or whoever requested it won't have to pay for it. This tends to avoid sore losers and people who where supporting them from waisting time and money.
Think about this as a loser pay's court system where if a recount didn't show a significant change in outcome, just like a frivolous lawsuit would typically lose, the people bringing the action would have to cover the cost of it.
Proof? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Proof? (Score:3, Funny)
"Prove" is such a strong word. How about Proofiness?
Re:Proof? (Score:2)
OF course (Score:0, Flamebait)
Re:OF course (Score:2, Troll)
Re:OF course (Score:1)
Re:OF course (Score:2, Informative)
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 [unreasonable.org].
As for Ohio, people went to jail for rigging the recount [cbsnews.com].
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 [wikipedia.org] or Kenya [slashdot.org]. But Americans are much more complacent about it.
Re:OF course (Score:2)
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!
Re:OF course (Score:1)
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 [washingtonpost.com], 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.
Re:OF course (Score:2)
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.
Fuck you liar (Score:-1, Troll)
That's a fucking lie, your link says nothing of the kind.
It says a lot about you that you'd choose to lie about a subject like this. It's obviously more important to you to be right thn to be honest, and amazingly, you failed on both counts.
Re:OF course (Score:0)
The final comprimise resulted in 500 votes. In favor of Bush. If gore hadn't tried to rig the election, he'd be president, go figure.
All those numbers are from that media study you mentioned by the way.
Re:OF course (Score:1)
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.
Re:OF course (Score:2)
"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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re:OF course (Score:1)
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 [pbs.org] (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.
Re:OF course (Score:2)
Again quoting from your link [pbs.org] (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.
Re:OF course (Score:1)
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 [iknowwhaty...ection.com] wasn't one.
Re:OF course (Score:2)
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.)
Re:OF course (Score:1)
That's a year and six days.
They were in fact convicted [iht.com], and that's the link I should have given.
However, I see on further review that they made a plea deal and got probation [upi.com]. 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.
Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Legitimacy of the power wielded by the Chief Executive should be widely accepted.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
I'll never accept it! I'm an anarchist! The only Chief Executive who tells me what to do is me!
<To self>: I'll never accept you as my master! I'm an anarchist! The only Chief Executive who tells me what to do is me!
<To self>: <To self>: I'll never accept you as my master! I'm an anarchist! The only Chief Executive who tells me what to do is me!
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the hell not? You're voting to give these clowns the right to skim money off *your* income for their pork barrel projects...
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:2)
Of course, this'll never happen because those who actually hold power (or have a shot at getting it) would never do anything to take money away from themselves.
Incomplete Recount Proves Nothing by definition (Score:0)
different demographics (Score:0)
Re:different demographics (Score:1)
Re:different demographics (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:different demographics (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [lathropgage.com].) Feel free to do more research online of course.
Re:different demographics (Score:2)
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.
Well done reporting, Slashdot. (Score:1)
Republican counting (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Republican counting (Score:2)
When I submitted this article, I knew that some folks would automatically assume that the election was fraudulent, and that any recount that didn't agree with what they "knew" must also be fraudulent. It's sad proof that facts can't drive out firmly held convictions. But just in another vain attempt, the issue with Ron Paul getting zero votes has already been clearly explained in this article [concordmonitor.com] that I posted a link to in the previous discussion of the NH election.
For anyone too lazy to click the link, here's the opening of the article:
Yeah, I know no "true believer" will believe this article either, but I have to try to inject some information into the discussion.
Re:Republican counting (Score:2)
How this person FEELS about being in the middle of voter fraud doesn't add one iota of meaningful information into the discussion.
Basically (from only the clip you posted, I didn't read the whole article you linked to) you're saying that the person who got caught involved in stealing a diamond necklace (not as valuable as democracy mind you, but it's good enough for analogy) is really really upset about the negative attention she's getting. Well, sorry (not really), but that's what happens when you get caught up in a crime like this. It would be irrelevant if she were to claim that it was a 'mistake' and that she (or her friend) just forgot to pay for it after she put it in her pocket, the damage was done.
My question is, why the attitude toward "true believers" (I assume a reference to a Ron Paul supporter, which I'm not BTW) when they clearly have valid proof of vote-miscounting, whether intentional or accidental? Is losing votes just not something that's important to you, and seems so trivial as to be dismissed as irrelevant?
Re:Republican counting (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my point. There was NO crime here. The attitude of "39 votes were lost, there must be a conspiracy, let's start a witch hunt" is exactly what this woman was upset about.
Re:Republican counting (Score:2)
You're not nearly important enough to decide what level of fraud is considered crime, ESPECIALLY voter fraud. How many votes lost DOES matter? Can they all be from the same candidate's voter pool? (you've answered affirmative on that already) Does it only matter if the votes would have gone to YOUR candidate? I suspect that's the case. People willing to toss out other's votes are usually very 'morally flexible' when it comes to OTHER candidates, but quite rigid when it comes to their own.
Did Diebold write this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:2)
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:0)
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:1)
I forgot to add.. (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM [youtube.com]
This video demonstrates how great the chain of custody was in NH. This basically proves that fraud could have easily happened and been undetectable.
Are you sure it's not your meds you forgot? (Score:0)
Absolutely. In exactly the same way, your posts prove you're a fucking idiot.
If you don't know WHY you're an idiot, go back and examine your post. It describes quite clearly why you're too fucking ignorant of this process to have an informed opinion.
And yet, you share your demonstrably ignorant opinion as though it was worth listening to...
Re:Are you sure it's not your meds you forgot? (Score:2)
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:1, Troll)
You conspiracy nuts really need to just chill out. New Hampshire is one state, with only a few delegates. It's not even worth the time and money it would require to perpetrate vote fraud.
Get over it. Ron Paul lost. He will continue to lose, because his ideas don't appeal to the majority of Americans.
Now I'm going to be modded into oblivion by all of the Ron Paul freaks, but who cares, I speak the truth.
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:2)
This is about a voting system with little security or oversight.
To firmly believe there couldn't have been fraud is as irrational as believing firmly that there was fraud.
Gadfly, Nut, and Weirdo (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:2)
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:1)
On the other hand, banks' take the whereabouts of their money very seriously. Probably more seriously than your local election board takes your vote.
Re:Did Diebold write this? (Score:2)
Easy Link for blackboxvoting.org (Score:3, Informative)
I guess maybe punchscan [punchscan.org] has it right...
Dump the paultarded flag (Score:1, Informative)
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 [dailypaul.com] and that any discrepencies were innocent.
"Recount Proves NH Election Fraud Undetectable" (Score:5, Funny)
Logic says that one can never prove a negative, and here in conspiracy land we OBEY the laws of logic.
Re:"Recount Proves NH Election Fraud Undetectable" (Score:0)
Logic says that one can never prove a negative
Prove it.
Re:"Recount Proves NH Election Fraud Undetectable" (Score:0)
I'm pretty sure I can prove that there aren't finitely many primes, or that there aren't any transcendental rational numbers... etc.
Re:"Recount Proves NH Election Fraud Undetectable" (Score:0)
The Nobel Prize in the field of Mathematics is waiting for you.
Male Bovine Excrement (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Still Doesn't Make Sense (Score:1)
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.
"hand count matches the machine count"? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:"hand count matches the machine count"? (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM [youtube.com]
Fraud is really a non-issue here (Score:1)
Proof against fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
BS... watch this video (Score:0)
Another possibility not covered by a recount (Score:2)
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.
Darn, no conspiracy? (Score:1)
Although you never know, in a year someone could cone forward and say it's a lie...
Why jump to conclusions? (Score:1)
No, seriously, what is the incentive?
Might want to look at the recount table again:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5598 [bradblog.com]
(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?
Ballots should have same controls as money (Score:0)
Would you store money in card board boxes in a closet in town hall and then let two guys named Gimpy and Bob drive around in a van picking them all up, then store the ballots in a big room where a bunch of people work?
No.
Ballots should be stored in tamper resistant ballot bags under triple lock with 3 different people having the keys to each lock. The tamper resistant bags should be sealed with tamper proof serial number seals and those serial numbers recorded for that bag. The bags should also be serialized and that number recorded as well. All this information should be required to be put on the ballot sign off sheet at the close of the polling.
When transported they should still be under three locks with not all the keys available in the vehicle so that nothing screwy happens to the ballots during transport.
Each time a serial number seal is broken the old number and the new numbers should be recorded, who is present listed and this sheet should be protected as a matter of public record.
As soon as possible after the election, every ballot should be scanned as image files and a record of every ballot preserved for all time. All election records should also be scanned in. Store all this info on a single DVD-R. Copies of the DVD-R should be available to every citizen for a nominal copy fee. Every scrap of paper and public record of every election should be available for all time.