Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results

[kpete]

Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-01-10 05:22. Elections
By Lori Price

*2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results
--Total Democratic
Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand* (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008 *
*Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: *39.618%*
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: *34.908%*
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: *36.309%*
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: *38.617%*
*Machine vs Hand*:
Clinton: *4.709%* (13,475 votes)
Obama: *-2.308%* (-6,604 votes)

*2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results*
--*Total
Republican Votes: 236,378* *Machine vs Hand *(RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: *33.075%*
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: *25.483%*
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: *7.109%*
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: *9.221%*
*Machine vs Hand*:
Romney: *7.592%* (17,946 votes)
Paul: *-2.112%* (-4,991 votes)

*NH: "First in the nation"
(with
corporate controlled secret vote counting)* By Nancy Tobi 07 Jan 2008
81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private
corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier").
The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company,
LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the
people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS
Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software
used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. 's *Coup 2004
*and *Yes, Gore DID win!
*.]

more at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29977

[Catch22Dem]

1. I blew these ideas off as nonsense

But this is definitely troubling.

[foo_bar]

12. your first instinct may have been closer

Kerry Beat Dean in New Hampshire by Only 1.5% When Computers Weren't Doing the Counting

Welcome to the land of Skull & Bones, with the help of Diebold are Republic is now gone. The New World Order is here, what do you wanna do about it ?.
In the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, exit polls, which are seldom far wrong, indicated a very close race. The final vote was not close. A close race would have constituted a win for Dean, given expectations. There is serious reason to be dubious of computerized vote counting systems (see Verified Voting or Black Box Voting for details). Such systems were used in New Hampshire, especially those of Diebold, the company that has attracted the most controversy, so I decided to analyze the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote in terms of who was doing the tabulation.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303703.shtml

What the USCV report does not mention is the finding by the Edison-Mitofsky report that the results for WPE <"Within Precinct Error"> by machine type appear hopelessly confounded by the regional (urban or rural) distribution of voting equipment. The E-M report includes a separate table (p. 40) that shows higher rates of WPE in urban areas for every type of voting equipment. Virtually all of the paper ballot precincts (88% -- 35 of 40) were in rural areas while two thirds of the machine count precincts (68% - 822 of 1209) were in urban areas.
<...>
Nonetheless, USCV want us to consider that "errors in for all four automated voting systems could derive from errors in the election results." OK, let's consider that theory for a moment. If true, given the number of precincts involved, it implies a fraud extending to 97% of the precincts in the United States. They do not say how that theory squares with the central contention of their report that "corruption of the official vote count occurred most freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds" (p. 11). Their own estimates say the questionable strongholds are only 1.6% of precincts nationwide (p. 14, footnote). Keep in mind that their Appendix B now concedes that pattern of WPE by precinct is consistent with "a pervasive and more or less constant bias in exit polls because of a differential response by party" in all but the "highly partisan Bush precincts" (p. 25).

Presumably, their theory of errors derived from "all four automated voting systems" would also include New Hampshire, the state with fourth highest average WPE in the country (-13.6), where most ballots were counted using optical scan technology. In New Hampshire, Ralph Nader's organization requested a recount in 11 wards, wards specifically selected because their "results seemed anomalous in their support for President Bush." The results? According to a Nader press release:

In the eleven wards recounted, only very minor discrepancies were found between the optical scan machine counts of the ballots and the recount. The discrepancies are similar to those found when hand-counted ballots are recounted.

A Nader spokesman concluded, "it looks like a pretty accurate count here in New Hampshire."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/04/what_the_uscv_r_1.html

[Birthmark]

2. Give it a rest.

Obama lost. Get over it already. There's plenty of other primaries.

[Peace Patriot]

3. "Get over it" is not an answer to this handcount vs. e-vote discrepancy, nor

to the polls vs. official 'count' (80% of it e-vote) discrepancy, nor to the presence in our voting system, throughout the nation, of 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and which no one--not even our secretaries of state--is permitted to review.

"There's plenty of other primaries." Yup, and they're all going to be like this, as is the general election: INHERENTLY fraudulent, due to 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, and full of anomalies, weird totals and red flags, that will, inevitably (that's what 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting is FOR) favor war and corporate rule.

People who say, "Get over it," and "Move along, nothing to see here," are advising stupidity, blindness, ignorance, lack of citizen involvement and the end of American democracy.

Bad advice.

Don't get over it...until they COUNT EVERY VOTE IN PUBLIC VIEW.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Thank you, Peace Patriot. "Get over it" is NOT an acceptable answer in a Democracy.

This is not about one candidate vs. another. It is about a transparent, verifiable system of voting!

[nashville_brook]

7. right on.

[Birthmark]

8. The "discrepancy" is manufactured.

Period. There are adequate explanations for the "discrepancy." There is not a jot of solid evidence of fraud. None.

[tomp]

5. how totally anti-democratic of you. nt

[Birthmark]

9. More like un-investigative

I don't feel the need to investigate every election that my candidate loses.

Or to make "fraud" out of cherry picked facts or whole cloth. Anyone who has actual *evidence* of fraud should present it. Claims are not evidence. Statistics on their own are not evidence. Find even a single machine that's been hacked, or a single hacker, or some other actual evidence and you'll get my attention.

[tomp]

11. an 18 pt. shift in the polls doesn't get your attention?

how very convenient to not care until there's proof. and you expect ME to provide you with proof. have you asked any of our elected representatives since 2000 about election fraud?

you suggest that only people whose candidates lost are concerned about investigating 18 pt shifts in polls. if you're right, we're in serious trouble.

[Birthmark]

13. Eighteen points? Well, if you want to cherry pick...

...you picked the wrong season. :)

And I didn't say "proof." I said evidence. Real evidence. Not some "statistically, this can't happen" nonsense. Produce a tampered machine/ballot/self-confessed conspirator...whatever. But don't waste our valuable time with your incredulity at a group of numbers that you've hand picked to arrive at a conclusion.

Thanks.

[tomp]

18. semantical hair splitting.

if i had evidence of vote tampering wouldn't that be pretty damn close to proof of vote tampering?

and where on earth should *I* get this evidence you demand if not from a recount?

so, we should not question unusal electoral events? and if i don't have "evidence" i can't voice an opinion or a question?

i reassert that your tolerance for electoral anomalies is anti-democratically too high.

as for wasting your valuable time...that's up to you.

[nashville_brook]

6. this is not about who won or lost -- it's about the integrity of the vote

your response is no different that the Brook Bros Brigade in 2000.

[Birthmark]

10. No, it's about story telling.

There isn't a whiff of hard evidence to indicate fraud. Nothing.

[Kurovski]

14. Wah-wah, boo-hoo, get the fuck over it, Crankshaft.

The "story-telling" is now restricted to one little forum.

Please, just get the fuck over it fer crissake. The rest of the site is now safe for you to roam. Please feel free to do so.

[Birthmark]

15. Overreact much? lol

[Kurovski]

16. lol

Seriously. Get over it.

[Birthmark]

17. Get over what?

Rationality? Making decisions based upon evidence? Think I'll pass, thanks.

[Kurovski]

19. Yeah. Mr. Monopoly, that's right, we want you to be the king of rationality.

Don't sully your fucking crown by hanging out in the ER forum.

Go and make Bev Harris' ass itch for a nice change of pace.

Please, take that pass out the ER door. Get over it. And don't forget all your self-sniffing baggage, take it with you.

Again, quit sniffing your own farts and telling us how great they are, we don't care. Get the Sam Hill over it, pumpkin king.

[Birthmark]

20. That was a lot of words to say nothing.

But I guess when the world is conspiring against you, you just want to vent, eh? Poor little guy.

[Kurovski]

21. Get over it.