New Hampshire Recount Underway - update from Nader/Camejo

[Dolphyn]

I just received the following email from the Nader/Camejo campaign:

Audio Message From New Hampshire:
http://www.audblog.com/media/29538/115208.mp3

Hi, this is Kevin Zeese, I'm here in Concord, New Hampshire with Rob Cirincione and Virginia Rodino and we're here for the New Hampshire recount of the Nader/Kerry/Bush race and it's just getting under way. There's a room full of people here. There's a lot of positive energy in the room. We've brought together more than twice the number of volunteers we need to manage the recount, to observe and make sure that the recount is done accurately. People feel very confident that we're going to make our democracy better and stronger. The media has started covering this. We've seen a lot of reports here in New Hampshire and even The Nation magazine, on their website, has an article about this New Hampshire recount. The Boston Globe was here, so I'm sure we'll see some coverage of this no matter how it turns out.

I want to make it clear what the goal is in this recount. We're not here trying to overturn the election. We're doing basic democracy activism. We're trying to protect our democracy. This is more like an audit of the vote. We're seeking a recount in wards in New Hampshire where there have been mathematical anomalies, where people expected more votes for Kerry than Bush, and Bush got anywhere from 5 to 15% more votes than expected. When we look at those numbers it turns out that most of those anomalies occurred in wards where the vote was counted on the Diebold AccuVote Machine, in fact 78% of those unusual votes were on those machines. This is the first audit in a Presidential Election of an electronic voting count system so it's an historic moment. Either way it turns out it will be good for our democracy. If it turns out that there was no problem, it will show that these machines were reliable in this race, it will show that there's a positive role for audits and it will make the Democrats question further why they keep losing support-and I think there's good reason they're losing support. If it turns out there's a problem, well then we have a major national story involving electronic voting and raising questions that really need to be evaluated, as more and more of the country goes to electronic vote count.

So, we're here, fighting for democracy and would love to have your support and best wishes for our success in it. Please visit our website (www.votenader.org) to get actively involved. This will be the first stage of the recount so we'll need more help as this goes forward. So, send your money (www.votenader.org/contribute/index.php), or call if you live in New Hampshire and would like to volunteer.

Thanks a lot.

Kevin Zeese
Campaign Spokesperson
[phone]

Contributions are not tax deductible.

Paid for by Nader for President 2004 General Election Committee

202.265.4000 - P.O. Box 18002,Washington, DC 20036

[KoKo]

1. Nail biting time....if anyone has any left to bite.... n/t

[BlueDog2u]

2. Thanks, Dolphyn, & Great Statement

& great work, Kevin. Keep us posted. We have our fingers crossed for democracy and we thank you profoundly for leading us forward in this historic moment.

[matt819]

3. Points taken, but possible flaw in your commentary

Your point regarding the audit is well taken. If it turns out the recount substantiates the results from the electronic voting machines, you're right that this will demonstrate that the machines were reliable in this vote. Fair enough. And if there are discrepancies, then we have a scandal of potentially monumental proportions.

Where I have a problem with your remarks is when you observe, ". . . and I think there's good reason they're losing support. . . " You're in the middle of a process that could very well determine whether or not the party is losing support. If the recount argues that there was fraud, then the dems might not be losing support. If you believe from the outset that the party is losing support, then, by extension, you fundamentally believe the recount is pointless because the results were accurate.

Why not wait for the results of the recount before you fall into the trap that so many commentators have fallen into regarding where the dems have gone wrong. Perhaps they haven't gone wrong at all.

[JD Lau]

4. Yes. Yes. Yes. But it's Zeese's commentary. He is the

one you should be directing your comments to. Why not e-mail
your statement here to the Nader campaign as well?

And I canNOT agree with you MORE!!!! Everybody is SO QUICK to say where the Dems went wrong. I am still here; you are still here; we are all STILL here waiting to see how this thing ACTUALLY(maybe) turns out! Everybody else is just like children at a kids' party, off to play the next game(like pin the tail on the donkey...and I'll let you fill in THAT blank)...

JD

[dbonds]

6. The reasons he thinks are not those of the 'moral issues'

He has stated all along that the Democratic party is controlled by corperate power as much as the republicans are. He feels betrayed that the party moved to the right and even people from his own organization that went into office will not help with the progressive agenda.

To that point he is right.

[LisaM]

8. I agree with your comments

if votes have been systematically stripped away from Democratic candidates, then we don't really need to do the soul-searching everyone suggests. We can turn back to the core values that created this party. If we really have been winning these elections (as in 2000) or performing stronger than has been indicated, then all this nonsense about moving to the center, re-defining the message, etc., can vanish.

I actually like the concept of a coalition between a center-left main Democratic party and progressive groups such as the Greens - it's a natural fit, because we should be strong in combination.

[Road Scholar]

13. CORRECT!!!!!!!!!! nt

[Eloriel]

5. What else can we do?

LOTS!!

First and foremost: Contribute to Help America Recount
HelpAmericaRecount is a new 527 set up by DUer hedda-Foil (also co-founder of the National Ballot Integrity Project) and others specifically to help fund recounts EVERYWHERE, in as many places as possible:

www.helpamericarecount.org

Second: Join the DU Activists here:
SIGN UP HERE: Join VOTE FRAUD WORK (write, organize, research, kick) Team
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=3830&mesg_id=3830


Third: Stay informed and help inform others.
Check out ACTIVISM posts in these threads which are an easy way to keep abreast of news and developments:

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

There are links for wonderful flyers, there are links for volunteering in Ohio, there are links for wwriting OH SoS Ken Blackwell, signing petitions, etc., etc., etc.

AND, as complete a compilation of links for the Vote Fraud news (along with Background Info re Companies, Resources, etc.) as I can manage.

And PLEASE get involved -- the democracy you save may be your own.

[mirandapriestly]

7. Is there any way tracks could have been covered as far as fraud goes?

Will this be fairly definitive of no wrong doing if the counts match? Are they checking the poll logs, where people sign in against the count? Does anyone know?

[NY lib NY]

9. Anybody know...

when the re-count ends or when we'll get pre-lim numbers?

[RedEagle]

10. A few flaws in the logis of this statement....

"This is the first audit in a Presidential Election of an electronic voting count system so it's an historic moment."

Now that's a monumental statement about our elections. Opscan has been around a long time and no one's set a process in motion to insure it's counting correctly.



"If it turns out that there was no problem, it will show that these machines were reliable in this race,"


Wait a minute. How are they counting the ballots? By machine again? Are they counting ballots or ballot records? Records are produced by the machine after the fact. Do they know, 100%, that they are dealing with the original ballots? Without that information, you can't make a statement like that.

[dkofos]

11. I believe they are counting real paper.

That's why they chose NH

[RedEagle]

14. Ballot "records" are real paper, too

But not real ballots.

Must count the voter-marked ballots.


If you count the ballot records, it's just like counting the printout after-the-fact from a DRE. It's not a voter verified ballot, it's the computer's version of your vote, it's "record," but not verified.

Details are everything.

[rfrrfrrfr]

15. For the last frigging time

The New Hampshire recount is doing a hand count of the OPTICAL SCAN PAPER BALLOTS. It is initially taking place in 11 counties of which the first 5 were done or at least started today.

[truehawk]

12. Kick

[RedOnce]

16. New Hampshire recount moving slowly

Nader-requested recount moving slowly

By Erik Stetson, Associated Press Writer | November 18, 2004

CONCORD, N.H. --A recount Ralph Nader requested for some New Hampshire towns went slower than expected Thursday and won't resume until next week, state election officials said.

Assistant Attorney General Bud Fitch said recounts in Nader's targeted precincts would not resume until at least Wednesday, virtually ensuring they won't end until after Thanksgiving.

Election officials hoped to finish recounts in five of Nader's 11 precincts Thursday, Gardner said. Ballot counters only finished two by 4 p.m., and had only partial returns in two others by nearly 8 p.m., when work ended for the night.

The completed areas, Litchfield and Manchester's Ward 7, showed little change from the official tallies.

Briggs said Gore lost Litchfield by eight percentage points, but Kerry lost by 15. Gore won the Manchester ward by eight points, but the candidates were even this year, she added.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/11/18/nader_requested_recount_starts_in_new_hampshire/

[masshole1979]

17. WTF?

Why will it stretch until after Thanksgiving?

And what has been done to protect the integrity of the ballots and the accuracy of the recount?

"The completed areas, Litchfield and Manchester's Ward 7, showed little change from the official tallies."

Scary, scary, scary.

[jsamuel]

18. "little" - WTF does that mean?

how much change is "little". 1,2,50,100? You realize that 100 vote change per precinct in Ohio would give kerry 1,100,000 more votes...

So a 15 vote per precinct change would give Kerry 165,000 more votes...

YOU HAVE TO DEFINE "little"...

[masshole1979]

19. You're right...

...I just thought of that right after I posted and thank God it wasn't just my scared mind trying to rationalize :)

The DUers need to get together in terms of how we are going to confront this. Everyone was assuming that the NH recount would crack the whole thing open like an egg, but there's a good chance it won't, for any number of reasons. We can't let this stop the momentum for getting investigations and recounts everywhere.

Can some veterans put the NH recount results on their own thread, and not just this thread based on some Nader guy's blog?

Plus, the G*D*MN*F*ING Boston Globe has to start using ACTUAL F*ING NUMBERS and not just commentary like "little."

Any way of finding out what the recount total actually was?

[masshole1979]

21. one thing that still scares me...

...not to lose the faith, but the fact that the guy was from Mass. would not necessarily help his cause with a lot of the NH people, to put it mildly. They and Maine are definitely the ugly stepsisters of New England (not that I agree with that assessment, O virtuous and well-armed people of the north), and there's more than a little resentment...I'm pretty sure they're the ones who coined the name, "masshole."

People here were just assuming that of course the precincts closer to Mass. would all swing stronger to Kerry. But proximity does not always breed fondness, sad to say.

[jsamuel]

22. The funny thing is KERRY WON AND GORE DIDN'T!

Kerry actually made gains over Gore, so I don't know why everyone expected Kerry to do so much better in NH in the first place.

[masshole1979]

23. but the swing was so small

gore lost by 7,000 and kerry won by about 9,000 (very rough numbers)

a measly 16,000 vote relative gain!

and you don't know what it was like on the ground. those people were canvassed until they were scared to answer the door or pick up the phone. half of mass. was up there getting potential kerry supporters to the polls. and the turnout was record, and countless people simply turned away from polling places that were way overcrowded because they couldn't find parking or didn't feel like waiting.

And no, there was no massive gop gotv effort, at least not in manchester Of course there a vote suppression effort, though nothing on the scale of 2002 when the repubs actually jammed the dem GOTV phone banks--one guy has already been indicted for this, no tinfoil whatsoever.

Frankly, and I know this looks bad to say, but I still can't accept the NH numbers based on the experience on the ground. If it does turn out that the tally was completely kosher that only shows that tons and tons of pro-dem precincts were underrepresented because of inadequate polling places relative to more sparsely populated areas.

[PatsFan2004]

48. Kerry got the Nader vote this time.

As far as I have seen, * got the same kind of vote in 2004 as he got in 2000. Kerry got the Gore vote plus a big chunk of the Nader vote. So, it seems that New Hampshire hasn't changed much in four years.

[CAcyclist]

49. If we don't undercover evidence of fraud in NH

I will still believe that they rigged it until my dying day. It's probably just more low-tech means like losing Kerry ballots and absentee ballots.

[AndrewClarke]

30. Gathered from all the articles I could find this morning:

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese, who observed the recount, said there ''was no significant difference" in the results from in Manchester and the nearby town of Litchfield. Democrat John F. Kerry, who carried the state by 9,274 votes out of 678,000 cast, gained six votes, President George W. Bush picked up three, and there was no change for Nader, Zeese said. Nader received less than 1 percent of the vote in the state. A recount of other Manchester wards was continuing into the early evening.
The recount of presidential ballots in Litchfield and two Manchester wards Thursday night differed by only 15 votes from more than 12,000 ballots cast.

What added intrigue to this recount Thursday night was that although presidential results changed by only four votes in Manchester Ward 6, Republican state Sen. Andre Martel picked up 105 more votes there while Democratic challenger David Gelinas added seven.

Secretary of State Bill Gardner also said state officials could not locate a recount tally sheet Thursday to verify ballots that had been counted by volunteers for an additional Manchester precinct - Ward 9.

[RedOnce]

31. So far, N.H. recount reveals no surprises

November 19, 2004

CONCORD, N.H. -- There is no chance to affect the outcome of the election, but a piecemeal recount of presidential votes began yesterday in New Hampshire...

Preliminary results from the tally, however, showed virtually no change in the result. The counting is tentatively scheduled to resume next week.

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese, who observed the recount, said there ''was no significant difference" in the results from one ward in Manchester and the nearby town of Litchfield. Democrat John F. Kerry, who carried the state by 9,274 votes out of 678,000 cast, gained six votes, President George W. Bush picked up three, and there was no change for Nader, Zeese said. Nader received less than 1 percent of the vote in the state. A recount of other Manchester wards was continuing into the early evening.

Zeese said the campaign will evaluate the results before determining how long to continue the recount.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles...

[life_long_dem]

35. This proves something is wrong with the voting machines.

If there wasn't a problem then the vote count would NOT change at all. 6 votes here, 3 votes there, that is totally unacceptable.

[masshole1979]

39. Ida where are you...

...would really like to hear your thoughts on all this...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/11/19/so_far_nh_recount_reveals_no_surprises/

[simply_the_best]

20. it's so close I can feel it

Zipidee do dah, zipidee ay, my oh my, what a wonderful day:)

[masshole1979]

24. simply...share some of that with me :)

...unless you're a freeper wallowing in our twisting over what the Boston Globe's definition of "little" is...

[bullimiami]

25. I dont know about you guys but I am nervous.

I want Ida to be right so bad and for some proof to help the cause.

It will be difficult if we find nothing because NH was one of the 3 states most divergent from the exit polls.

[jsamuel]

26. I have been screaming for there to be people with video cameras in...

election offices in every county. How easy would it be for someone to do what they were trying to do in Volusia?

VERY

The only reason why Volusia was caught was because of Bev. IF ONLY PEOPLE LIKE US WOULD TAKE OUR VIDEO CAMERAS AND SPEND A FEW DAYS CHECKING THESE PLACES OUT...

[Nitro]

27. I really hate to say I told you so....

...but I'm ticked that no one listened to me. I explained in very clear terms why recounting NH wouldn't turn up any evidence of computer vote fraud. I gave very clear reasons:

1) there was a different early exit poll that had the same numbers in every other swing state, but only had Kerry up 3% in NH (I even gave a number of links)

2) a 10-18% lead for Kerry was absurd for a number of reasons: a) it was the only early exit poll result that was outside the margin of error from the pre-election state tracking polls; b) Kerry's the first Dem to win there in my lifetime; c) 51-48 easily becomes 58-41 just by flipping the one's digit before sending out the email)

3) Rove knew that a paper trail was produced in NH. Why would he make it that obvious? He didn't fudge with the computers in NV, which also requires a paper trail. He!!, Rove even mentioned the huge lead on Fox News on election day!

I tried to tell you it was all a setup, but no one would listen. Someone even told me I should be ashamed of myself.

Now the national media is going to use this as an excuse to kill our whole story. Look at their god@mn press release: "If it turns out that there was no problem, it will show that these machines were reliable in this race, it will show that there's a positive role for audits and it will make the Democrats question further why they keep losing support-and I think there's good reason they're losing support." That's a godd@mn Republican talking point: the Dems need to re-evaluate themselves. Makes us all look stupid and useless to the average ear and insults our effort and beliefs. We don't need to re-evaluate crap - we know what we stand for and we are the majority. Our party is as unified and strong in numbers as it's ever been. We had more votes, they just didn't get counted by the Bush Black Boxes.

What does this rat-bastard Nader need to do to for you people to stop blindly putting your faith in him? He helped stick Bushitler in office, continually perpetuates the myth that Repugs and Dems are "equally bad," wouldn't get off the ballot this time even though we begged him, and took blood money.

He sold out, and now he's trying to kill the vote fraud story before it even starts (and we helped him).

[ZRB]

28. How is the media going to kill the story?

There is no "story" to kill. Nothing will change.

We just need to keep focusing on getting the Ohio recount done. I always thought New Hampshire turning up fraud evidence would be a bonus.

Ohio! Ohio! Ohio! Ohio! Ohio! Florida!

[rfrrfrrfr]

29. UM first of all

They only counted two of the 11 precincts we wanted to look at in the first place and have only partial recounts in a couple others.

Secondly even a small percentage error in the votes if systemic could be enough to swing Ohio to Kerry.

Thirdly Nader DID THIS AT OUR REQUEST so stop ragging on Nader.

[CementDude]

32. Yeah but...

If it turns out that the results were legit, Nader will have proved that these voting machines don't exhibit a "programming bug" and would at least take that explanation for the voting discrepancy off the table.

There is no harm here. I, for one, would like to know that there isn't a "widespread" machine error with this particular optical scan system. Also, it would alleviate concerns about the exit poll that DID show Kerry up by a ton in NH, even if it was outside the margin for error (yes, polls can swing widely - especially if the polling is defunct, which we won't know until we learn more about how they conducted it - the details of the exit poll).

We can't pick-and-choose which exit polls we like and don't like, and then wonder why the actual results don't match up. What Nader is doing needs to be done. It doesn't answer all the issues out there, but it helps to paint a post-election picture where a majority of Dems can move on and figure out how to do better next time.

[BlueDog2u]

33. Copy that

What Nader is doing needs to be done. It doesn't answer all the issues out there, but it helps to paint a post-election picture where a majority of Dems can move on and figure out how to do better next time.

[RedOnce]

34. First off, we have to throw out New Hampshire

NH may be the wrong place to test. This was published prior to the NH recount:

Exit Polls and Voter Fraud: A User-Friendly Explanation

by SEAN SABATINI

...Note that we’re looking at original numbers here, not the revised data now posted on major news sites.

First off, we have to throw out New Hampshire, which Kerry won by one point. Early polls showed him with an unrealistic 17 point lead , and while it later dropped to 10, that’s still an improbable lead for a state that Bush won in 2004. Sadly, the numbers for New Hampshire are too unreliable to analyze properly.

http://www.opednews.com/sabatini_111804_vote_fraud.htm

[IAMREALITY]

37. We Don't Listen Because

We have adapted more and more through this election season to tune out ignorance. Or at least that's why I didn't listen...

[go west young man]

42. I'm Karl Rove and I approve this message....

I'm sure that weasly bastard reads these boards to see whats up with whats really up.

[txindy]

36. Would we really begin a recount in a precinct likely to show big problems?

If we started out by counting those precincts where the changes are likely to be large, the media focus would be intense. Who needs that kind of attention when we're just getting started? Who needs to start out with chaos by unleashing a torrent of 'proof' that elec. voting machines are reliable?

I'm happy to wait for all 11 precincts to be completed before I draw any conclusions. Let them count in peace without FAUX news and other MSM pitching a fit. Until the recounting is complete, the media would have all the ammunition. Our hands would be tied because we wouldn't have any NH data to refute their claims.

[masshole1979]

38. but the manchester precinct was one of the fishiest...

...and that's one of the two they're finished counting and it shows virtually no change, supposedly

manchester is the largest city in new hampshire

[bullimiami]

40. you think we can wait until we have the final results

instead of some blurb here or there before we come to any conclusions.

im of the opinion that we had to look here, apparently im not the only one, Nader is no nitwit and he decided to go ahead with it.

[masshole1979]

41. important point: the deviation was in Bush's favor in the manchester prec.

AGAIN

So far the only Manchester precinct to be recounted shows a 3 vote gain for bush (if I'm reading the Globe article correctly). Not quite what we were expecting, but the record is unbroken, that every anomaly so far favors bush.

Edit: here's the relevant quote from the article showing the gain for kerry in the recount. It is not clear to me if there was a three vote gain for both precints total or what was the action on a precinct by precint basis.

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese, who observed the recount, said there ''was no significant difference" in the results from one ward in Manchester and the nearby town of Litchfield. Democrat John F. Kerry, who carried the state by 9,274 votes out of 678,000 cast, gained six votes, President George W. Bush picked up three, and there was no change for Nader, Zeese said. Nader received less than 1 percent of the vote in the state. A recount of other Manchester wards was continuing into the early evening.

[jdog]

43. How many wards in Manchester?

[AndrewClarke]

44. 12 wards

Manchester has 12 wards. Wards 6, 7, 8, and 9 are being recounted.

[jdog]

45. Thank you AndrewClark

and WELCOME!
:hi:

[republikkkon]

46. i would be VERY suprised...

if rove was stupid enough to leave a paper trail behind any instance of voter fraud. i don't think bushco is that foolish.

[txindy]

47. Not foolishness. Arrogance.

And a basic lack of understanding. They never expected us to look at a state that Kerry won, only the places he lost.

[RageKage]

50. New Hampshire was just the appitizer.

It will make the GOP part of the public more comfortable with
the idea of a recount for 'verification'.

There are bigger more important fish already on the line.

Anyways, after the election the first thing I did was look at
the State by State results and change in vote from 00, per
party.

Very simple, unscientific, look, just to see what seemed like
obvious Bull.

This is simply all states (except ND?)  ranked by :

 	  (%chng GOP vote)     '00     %chng	%chng
 	- (%chng DEM vote)	split	DEM vote GOP
				GOP/Dem

Vermont		-22.4%		41/51	23.2%	0.8%
alaska		-18.1%		59/28	8.6%	-9.5%
Maine		-17.1%		44/49	13.8%	-3.3%
Montana		-15.0%		58/33	24.1%	9.1%
Idaho		-9.3%		67/28	30.5%	21.2%
Oregon		-8.6%		47/47	23.4%	14.7%

New Hampshire	-6.7%		48/47	27.7%	20.9%

Colorado	-6.5%		51/42	21.8%	15.2%
Wyoming		-3.8%		69/28	16.8%	13.0%
South Dakota	-3.7%		60/38	25.6%	21.9%
Nevada		-2.9%		50/46	40.5%	37.6%

Ohio		-2.7%		50/47	21.7%	18.9%

Minnesota	-2.3%		46/48	23.6%	21.2%
D.C.		-1.8%		9/85	7.0%	5.2%

North Carolina	-0.6%		56/43	18.3%	17.7%

Wisconsin	-0.4%		48/48	19.8%	19.4%
Virginia	0.9%		53/44	14.7%	15.6%
South Carolina	2.6%		57/41	14.9%	17.5%
Texas		2.6%		59/38	15.7%	18.3%
Iowa		2.8%		48/49	14.8%	17.6%
New Mexico	3.8%		48/48	23.4%	27.1%
California	3.8%		42/54	-7.4%	-3.6%
Michigan	4.2%		46/51	13.9%	18.1%
Pennsylvania	4.8%		46/51	16.0%	20.8%
Illinois	5.4%		43/55	9.2%	14.6%
Utah		6.7%		67/26	11.5%	18.2%
Mississippi	7.5%		58/41	8.8%	16.3%
Arizona		8.9%		51/45	7.3%	16.2%
Missouri	9.2%		50/47	12.8%	22.1%
Maryland	9.5%		40/57	5.6%	15.1%
Kansas		9.9%		58/37	5.4%	15.3%
Arkansas	10.0%		51/46	9.8%	19.8%

Massachusetts	10.5%		33/60	11.0%	21.5%

Washington	10.7%		45/50	-14.3%	-3.6%
Nebraska	10.9%		62/33	1.1%	12.0%
Kentucky	11.0%		57/41	11.3%	22.3%
Indiana		11.8%		57/41	6.5%	18.4%
Georgia		12.6%		55/43	20.5%	33.1%

Florida		12.9%		49/49	21.4%	34.3%

Delaware	14.0%		42/55	11.0%	25.0%
West Virginia	15.4%		52/46	8.8%	24.3%
Connecticut	18.5%		39/56	3.9%	22.4%

New York	22.5%		33/58	0.7%	23.2%

New Jersey	23.0%		40/56	0.6%	23.6%
Rhode Island	24.7%		32/61	-0.8%	23.8%
Alabama		24.9%		56/42	-0.5%	24.3%
Tennessee	24.9%		51/47	5.2%	30.1%
Oklahoma	26.9%		60/38	6.3%	33.2%
Hawaii		28.1%		37/55	12.7%	40.8%
Louisiana	35.8%		53/45	3.3%	39.0%

Pretty simple, sure, but there is obviously something wrong. 
But New Hampshire looks like one of the states where vote
seemed right, by what I'd predict: in a slightly GOP state,
Kerry brought out way more new voters.  

I think they will use NH as a base standard of a true count to
compare with other states.

[nolabels]

51. Also is there any list of independent voters?

not that I am saying more them voted for bush but their numbers could have been more even. The polling could have been wrong but kind of doubt it. They only have one small recount so far. Maybe more will turn up. Looking at them # for NH makes me think this was not a good call :shrug:

[RageKage]

52. This list does not look at party registrations

Sorry, I wasnt clear. The "%change GOP vote" and "%change DEM vote"
in the above table refers to the change in the number that voted for Gore in 00 to the number that voted Kerry in 04, and the number that voted for Bush in 00, and Bush in 04. It has nothing to do with party registration.

[nolabels]

53. I kind of of understand it now

I live in one of the anomalies, in the state of "California". I would be guessing from the table that California lost voters or at least votes, but this is probably is not the case. My guess is we GAINED independent voters (or re-registered as independent for one reason or another).

Now looking at N.H. that does seem like a good call considering they are the ones with the largest change that still has mostly paper ballots.

Thanks for clearing that up, some of us are not math geniuses :dunce: