It's time to move the discussion of alleged election fraud in NH to the Election Reform forum

[Skinner]

After careful consideration, the DU Administrators have come to the conclusion that this discussion has become disruptive and divisive to our community. If there were any credible evidence to support the allegation of fraud or voting machine malfunction in New Hampshire, then I would be more than willing to let the discussion continue in our two General Discussion forums. But at this point no such evidence has been produced. The horse has been beaten to death, propped back up, then beaten to death again. Everyone has said their piece (numerous times). Nothing new is being added, and no minds are being changed. After all that, here's where we stand:

1. No credible evidence of fraud or malfunction has yet been produced.

2. A number of observers here and elsewhere have provided perfectly rational explanations for alleged discrepancies between tracking polls and the final outcome.

3. So far there has been nary a peep from any campaign indicating that they believe there may have been either fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire.

4. If any of the campaigns had reason to believe that there was fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire, and if they wished to challenge the results of the election, a paper trail exists whereby the results could be verified.

If someone actually has some real evidence to support the claims of fraud or machine malfunction, then we'll be glad to let this discussion back into the General Discussion forums. But unless that happens, I think the time has come to take a break.

From now on:

Please do not post any more threads alleging fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire in either the General Discussion forum or the General Discussion: Politics forum. If you wish to discuss alleged election fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire, please do so in our Election Reform forum.

I am instructing the moderators to move all threads on the topic of election fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire out of the two General Discussion forums and into the Election Reform forum.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[MNDemNY]

1. Bravo.

[H2O Man]

Thank you. n/t

[End Of The Road]

2. I was hoping you would do this! eom

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Three cheers

Excellent decision.

[redqueen]

4. Thank you!

[Cameron27]

5. Yes!

and thank you!

[Yael]

6. Thank you

[jefferson_dem]

7. Thanks.

:)

[William769]

8. K&R!

The best friggin post of the day! Thank you.

[chimpymustgo]

9. Why stifle discussion on something our very DEMOCRACY depends on??????

Do we have no right to DEMAND transparent, VERIFIED voting????

I have to ask WTF??? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

[Skinner]

11. Because in this case there is no evidence to support the allegations being made. (nt)

[chimpymustgo]

21. Skinner, how will we ever get evidence. When we can't even discuss the POSSIBILITY on a

DISCUSSION board, what candidate will dare challenge the results? The John Kerry approach to election fraud is going to snatch what is left of our democracy completely from us. This is not about one candidate or another - it's about our SYSTEM OF VOTING AND COUNTING THE VOTES.

How many elections must we endure with day-after tortured explanations of voters lying to pollsters, voters being racists, voters being sexists, values voters...voters (add your sweeping presumption here) - before we look at the WAY THE VOTES ARE COUNTED?

Is this really too much to ask?

[William769]

46. What part of this did you not understand?

"It's time to move the discussion of alleged election fraud in NH to the Election Reform forum"

[truedelphi]

71. No what part iof this do you not understand.

I do not care if Tuesday's election involved my esteemed father running against my grandaughter.

The election results were counted on equipment that has about as much relationship to democracy as bags of snot and poop has to hygiene.

We need transperent vote counting mechanisms: paper ballots counted by democratically chose officials with anyone who wants to watching the counts.

We need to ahve candidates aware fo the fact taht the public should not be being brainwashed into thinking that a normal part of democratic elections involve the media calling the eletion winners, ESPECIALLY not before the vote tallies are all brought in (or close to all brought in)

The media calling the winner when only 65% of the votes have been processeed is not acceptable.

[William769]

76. Chimpymustgo said there was no place to post.

Once again what part did you not understand?

[truedelphi]

95. I think he is referring to the notion that many of us who arehere on DU

Came to DU thinking that this site was the number one spot for Democratic leaning people
to visit when it is necessary to speak out about election reforms.

Now we are being treated like the second class citizen on the bus - we can discuss but only while buried at the Election reform forum, not in GD or in GD Politics.

If I didn't beleive that he is off having a real REAL good time right now, I would type that Andy Stephenson is spinning in his grave as I type this.

[Ignis]

78. I think YOU misunderstood.

Skinner said this:

Please do not post any more threads alleging fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire in either the General Discussion forum or the General Discussion: Politics forum.

He did not say that it was verboten to respond in this thread on this very topic.

[William769]

79. I misunderstood nothing his title is very clear.

[Ignis]

80. His title says "Don't You Dare Reply To This Post?"

Must be a data error in transmission, then.

:shrug:

[William769]

81. Thats funny, I thought it said this.

"It's time to move the discussion of alleged election fraud in NH to the Election Reform forum".

And the person I originally responed to said there was no place to post the information.

Your serve.

[Ignis]

82. That poster was responding to Skinner's request.

You want maybe he should start a new thread in the ER dungeon instead? Why should he not reply in the same thread, directly to Skinner's post? That's the "discussion" part of DU forums.

But hey, don't let me stop your quest for justice...

[William769]

83. seems to me like your the one wanting to be hall monitor.

It's his board he makes the rules, you don't like it you know what to do. Whining is not helping your cause.

[Ignis]

86. Your reasoned debate has swayed me from my position!

Thanks for adding so much new and interesting content to the discussion!

Love your profile, by the way!

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

129. In other words, an authoritarian decision ... not to be discussed --- ?

[FogerRox]

107. Dennis asking for a recount is a legit news story

The Discussion you ask for will occur, has occured in the ER for years. The ER has compiled a daily Election Reform News thread for well over 3 years.

[defendandprotect]

125. This again makes another subject taboo --- rather than dealing with it --

As far as I can see, those who are discussing election fraud aren't the problem ---
in fact Dennis Kucinich has moved to ask for a recount in New Hampshire which should
certainly make the discussion legitimate ---

The problem seems to be with those who are simply focused on the less important issue
of their candidates "win."

Believe me, folks, the issue of whether we do not have have fair elections is probably
one of the most important discussions we can be having ---

Meanwhile, as far as I can see . .. 2000, itself, was evidence ---

And, for those who aren't aware of it, the last time around in New Hampshire, THIS is what happened: ----



"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up," she wrote recently. "Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines. A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove" everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited," she warned.

In other words, on the way to recounts some strange things happen ---

And we just had a scandal recently where two women were "organizing" the votes that they
were selecting to be counted --- in order to forestall a full recount!!!

They were faced with jail time, but I think the sentence was suspended?

[Bonobo]

31. What would this theoretical "evidence" look like?

[Essene]

41. I suspect if any remote evidence emerges, they'd have to respect discussion of it

I dont take questions of voting and election fraud lightly... and there may be serious problems in New Hampshire, but there's no real evidence yet. The mods are simply trying to keep the forum sane at this time.

If there was a report today indicating even some vague preliminary anecdotal evidence, i think there would be reason to open up the floodgates of discussion again on the general politics forum.


Discussion isnt being closed. It's just being moved for now.

[Whisp]

84. does this 'evidence' thing apply to all topics...

or just election fraud.

I'm a bit confused on this.
There are numerous threads on many topics in GD that are not based on solid 'evidence' ....

[robinlynne]

114. I ahve not seen the "allegations" but the fact that a Diebold central tabulator was used is evidence

enough that the count cannot be believed. These tabulators failed every single test performed on them. They should be, and hopefully will be outlawed very soon. Way before yesterday, election protection citizens were questioning any results provided by the Diebold tabulator, and on planes to New Hampshire. It takes all of 2 minutes for a student level computer analyst to hack into this tabulator. if and when there is any difference between the polls and the votes, one must question the vote count. This is basic polling 101, as explained by a Harvard professor of polling methodology.
(referring to exit polling, not any other type of election polling)

[defendandprotect]

126. TRUE! Any Diebold involvement would be "evidence." ---

[robinlynne]

121. Why do you say that? There is a wealth of evidence that the machines used

in new Hampshire are not reliable. All evidence about Diebold tabulators is that they are not reliable, not trustworthy, hackable in minutes. If the accusations are that we cannot trust the results of an election counted by Diebold, than the accusations are 100% correct and supported by all of the evidence. Tests ahve been done by several Univeristies, states, and hackers. They failed EVERY test and every study. They failed 100% of the tests.

There is no evidence that any certain person hacked into a machine.

[no name no slogan]

10. Thank you Skinner

Good decision.

You may now resume the circular firing squad.

[Bonobo]

12. Yeah, and let's make a waaaaaahmbulance forum and move those thread too.

[Adelante]

13. Thank God and thank you, Skinner

You've both answered my prayers. O8)

[Auntie Bush]

18. No, he answered MY prayer! I asked first and he likes me better!

LOL and :hi:

[sandnsea]

14. I suggest people fight for reform in their own state

If you aren't, then shut the hell up. IMHO.

[defendandprotect]

130. Yeah, let's not make any general or national noise to inform the whole of America --- !!!

[Auntie Bush]

15. Thank you Skinner!

[Essene]

16. sounds like a fair stance (until and unless facts emerge)

[pdxmom]

17. Thank you. N/T

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Bless you and the other mods!

[Flabbergasted]

20. Thanks KR

[Clintonista2]

22. thanks. n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

23. Thank you.

[chimpymustgo]

24. And shall we move charges of sexism to the SEXISM forum? Racism to the RACISM forum?

Let's talk about our election process - the good, the bad the ugly.

Sunlight. It works.

[SIMPLYB1980]

26. Get over it.

[Bonobo]

30. "Get over it" is perhaps the stupidest response to this serious issue which affects you too.

[SIMPLYB1980]

33. Cying wolf won't help us reform our election process.

It actually makes it harder. IMHO.

[Essene]

37. If there were dozens of threads, without evidence, yes

[mikelgb]

40. stop "dissrupting" this nice tranquil thread

[LostinVA]

54. Dear God

[druidity33]

99. i'm with you chimpy!

I thought DU was THE place to go to discuss this issue (ER) like rational adults. Has anyone yet posted the statistical tallies from hand-counted towns vs. op-scan towns (the results of these tallies are suspicious)? Are we ignoring all of BradBlog's hard work on this issue?

Proof will only be had if there's a recount. By hand. In every town. How can ANYONE offer proof to a freaking discussion board, when no one can prove it to the courts yet. LaLarawraw has a good thread (on the Greatest Page) with the same question i had as its predominant theme... why would anyone deign to trust the accuracy of these machines? "sour grapes", "sore loser", "get over it"... i thought i was done with that shit. And now i'm hearing it from DEMOCRATS, on THIS BOARD?

i need to take a break from here... DU is feeling wrong right now.

:(

[FogerRox]

109. I've been hanging in the ER forum for years

Come on over.

[defendandprotect]

131. Absolutely true-! There are too many people here who want comfort over controversy ---

That's simply a bury your head in the sand approach ---

[depakid]

25. Thank you

All of the paranoia actually hurts the cases where there actually is evidence of fraud....

It gets to be like the boy who cried wolf type of thing.

[Bread and Circus]

27. Thank you very much...

but it's too bad that a lot of the other garbage, lies, and misleading posts aren't put in a "free speech zone" as well.

[rudy23]

28. Let's remember this come November, when we've got to challenge all those local and state elections

Let's remember the themes that have been established:

* people only complain about voter fraud because they can't accept seeing their candidate lose
* challenging election results "looks bad"
* unexplained, overnight swings of 15%, and other numerical discrepancies aren't cause for concern
* people who think Diebold would try to affect a Democratic primary are "conpiracy theorists"
* primaries aren't important enough to get all worked up over this

[chimpymustgo]

35. Bookmarking. But we'll be crying in our teacups then, with impotent rage and sorrow. nt

nt.

[Essene]

44. while nibbling on our proverbial cakes

=D

[Occam Bandage]

64. Let's cry wolf over and over again, so people will believe us when there are wolves!

:eyes:

[rudy23]

74. Between unexpected results and hard evidence, lies skepticism

There are a lot of strawmen around here trying to say that people who are skeptical enough of the vote to want verification, are "crying wolf", and making outrageous claims of their own. Some may be, but most just seem to want more transparency in all this. Some of us just want to establish the precedent that we WILL challenge votes that don't smell right. If no evidence comes of it, fine, but at least give it time for the skepticism to turn into some investigative researching of cause and effect before you cry that there's no evidence.

This same psychology is the reason Kerry didn't challenge. The Occam's Razor people who don't factor the complex web of human desires in a situation that raises questions.

[newburgh]

92. Well Said! There's no evidence EITHER way. So we should trust Diebold now?

And just pretend everything's honky dory, just sweep it under the rug into the obscurity of sub-discussion group even though it generates a lot of discussion that is relevant and CURRENT. The name calling by the Clinton supporters exactly mimics the Repugs after 2000 and 2004. What great company.

[rudy23]

94. Not coincedentally, the campaign of Hillary exactly mimics the Repukes

--invoking Al Quaeda's interest in our elections to scare up votes
--trashing the legacy of MLK
--the race baiting of her minions

Disgusting.

[defendandprotect]

132. You don't understand . . . things have to be kept PLEASANT here ---

and anything that leads to some heated discussion or looks like DU isn't in full agreement has to be taken off to the woodshed!

[nashville_brook]

90. should be it's own thread.

bravo.

[FogerRox]

108. SIGH, its election fraud, not voter fraud.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Thank You!

[tritsofme]

32. Off to the dungeon where it belongs.

Thank you Skinner!

[yowzayowzayowza]

34. Fantastic!!

Thx, Skinner!! :hi:

[SteppingRazor]

36. As a DUer, thank you. As an Obama supporter...

thank you even more. We were looking pretty damn stupid in some of those threads.

[mikelgb]

38. official censorship will only convince more that there really must be something to their wild theory

bad move,

igore shit you don't like until it goes away like the Hillary crying threads.

oh and it has been ONE WHOLE DAY since the NH Primary they have not even counted all the votes let alone made any attempt to look for evidence of fraud. You make it sound in your post like this has been going on for far too long to tolerate any longer. "beaten horse etc."

Right.

I have read maybe two threads on this issue so far, I am sure their have been more, but banning people from posting one type of post is childish, itelst "dissruptive to

disgrace

[Essene]

42. this isnt censorship... at all

They are just moving discussion to another forum, until/unless something substantial emerges.

[FREEWILL56]

77. So when the repukes do this to us AGAIN in a GE will this also be sent

into the same voter forum or will it be allowed front page? To give said leadway when it concerns possible frauds by Democrats means the same concideration goes to the repukes and all must therefore shut the f up with them too. It validates their (edit to add: alleged) misdoings too.

[FogerRox]

110. Right, Dennis calling for a recount was legit breaking news

Fine, but we have been talking about ER for years in the ER forum.

[defendandprotect]

133. And you think anyone really believes that . . . ?

[LostinVA]

56. oh brother

[1corona4u]

39. Excellent move!!!! Thanks!!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cindyw]

45. Sorry to stop the rear kissing to admin, but I don't think that is

what is making this place divisive. This is a serious matter that does not belong relegated to some far corner. When the Repub does it and we talk about it in the POLITICS section, will you say stop and send it to its room?

[chimpymustgo]

48. Good post, cindyw! And why wait till November?? Geez people. What is the problem?

What do we need to HIDE???

[defendandprotect]

134. We've had basically no change in our voting situation from 2000 . . .and btw folks . . .

this hasn't only been going on since 2000 --- it's been going on since the mid-1960's!!!

That's when the computers first came in ---

[midlife_mo_Jo]

49. Rear kissing?!!! I competely support the idea.

Sour grapes mixed with very serious unfounded charges despite evidence to the contrary makes everyone on this board look stupid. People are reading here, and minds are changing. That's a good thing. We don't need to run people off with tinfoil accusations.

This is not Free Republic.

Thank you, Skinner.

[cindyw]

51. Most amazing irony here is you signature and what you said

BY the way I personally did not argue for recounting assuming she did anything wrong. I just think it is the best way to ensure our credibility come November.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

55. I stand by my signature

and I stand by what I said.

A little discernment helps, sometimes, you know. :)

[cindyw]

59. Let's just hope they don't come for you with their Diebold machines.

That is the irony. I don't think ignorance is bliss and it would seem by you don't either. So yeah I think it is ironic that you are making an argument for bliss in not checking.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

60. There is no evidence of any shenanigans in New Hampshire!

But let's stop this. I don't think this is what Skinner had in mind for this thread. :)

Peace.

[Essene]

50. Hmm. Ok, that's a good point. But...

Regardless of whether the admins would move discussions of Republican fraud (ALLEGATIONS without evidence), there is a commitment to this not being a pure mud pit among democrats.

In other words, throwing baseless mud at Republicans is (however) more acceptable than tons of baseless threads causing division among the forum members. =D

[cindyw]

57. Again, I do not think that we should decide now that exit polls and polls

are not a fair indication of malfunction or cheating (not accusing Hil of this)

[defendandprotect]

135. Despite all signals to the contrary --- ???

We know that polls are simply statistics which can be manipulated ---
and good gawd, look at the questions!!

Exit polls --- if there was at one time a legitmacy to them, they've destroyed that.

So -- you've no questions about 2000 or 2004 or 2006 --- and
even if you did, you still think you should give them the benefit of the doubt?

[Occam Bandage]

63. It isn't "a serious matter." There's no reason to believe anything foul happened.

[defendandprotect]

136. If something very noisily "foul" happened in 2000, why trust the system after that?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

47. Thank you. A very wise move, imo.

[LostinVA]

52. Thank the GODS!

And, also a big thank youm to Skinner.

[LeftCoast]

53. Awesome!

:happydance:

[mikelgb]

58. I think we should have a "mod forum"

where all the inane shit that the mods post that gets immediately greatest paged gets dumped instead into a forum where nobody goes

we've tolerated this far too long

[Occam Bandage]

62. If you're sick of "tolerating the mods," go moderate your own forum.

[mikelgb]

67. if their sick of tolerating thier users....

after 1 day....

[TwilightZone]

98. Skinner owns the place. Literally.

He pays the bills, so as far as I'm concerned, he can make the decisions.

Perhaps you can start your own forum and determine the rules for yourself.

[Occam Bandage]

61. Finally. Jeez, that was stupid.

[cloudythescribbler]

65. I'M NOT ONE UTTERLY CONVINCED ELECTION FRAUD THEORY IS TRUE, but

There is the issue not only of tracking polls but at least many reportedly, of the exit polls.

At least Zogby had the honesty to say as a response to the discrepancy: "I don't know"

It seems a bad omen, when many of the worst threads, some only flaming, not only are allowed but get plenty of recommendations.

One example: all the McClurkin malarkey attributing McLurkin's views to Obama, or at least citing Obama as "pandering".
Yet I do not favor censorship, as this example illustrates -- the most urgent discussions of possible truth are the FIRST to get squelched. This is true in general

It seems that what is "divisive" about the topic is that we are talking about possible election fraud WITHIN the Democratic Party, rather than between Democrats and "Repukes".

It is simply unfair to say that NO evidence pointing to election fraud has been found. My mind is still quite open about NH 08(as most of the MSM were not and are not about Ohio 04). Note that Kerry didn't contest the Ohio results either, so this is truly a lousy test.

And in 2000 no one DARED file a class action lawsuit in FL under the Voting Rights Act etc on behalf of all disenfranchised black voters.

When the diktaat in the system is -- ALL the disadvantages of the NEW (for progressives) but NONE of the advantages, why, in this transition era, everyone across the political spectrum of any authority in the US just clicks their heels and says "how high?"

I note also that when in OTHER countries, even where the discrepancy is smaller, as in the Ukraine in 04, if the polls WIDELY diverge (ALL OF THEM AS HERE) from the election outcome, we have NO PROBLEM assuming that there WAS election fraud, while here in the US, the 'we don't do that sort of thing' holy-and-meekness places the very ARGUMENT that there MIGHT have been or PROBABLY WAS decisive fraud (there's always some) is beyond the pale.

[truedelphi]

72. I think that in 2000 no class action suits couold be filed

As all the votes have to be counted before such a thing can be done.

So when the vote count stopped, the chance for lawsuits stopped also.

However, I am remembering this from some eight years ago, so my poor brain may not be totally right on this.

[Snarkturian Clone]

66. Well done.

For a known troll and disruptor, you've made an excellent choice. :bounce:

[Imagevision]

68. What sucks is knowing your vote won't be verified, Diebold, 'you'll have to trust us'...

[1corona4u]

69. K

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. Does this apply only to vote fraud, or to polling fraud as well.

It seems to me, that is where the problem is - when Hillary had a 20pt lead in NH prior to Iowa, how did that become a 10pt lead for Obama? Was Iowa THAT convincing?

I see a 20pt lead decreasing to a 2pt lead as being not unreasonable, but +20 to -5 to +2 in a matter of a week (a 25% swing there) as indicated by the polls is just weird.

Can we talk about contamination of the polls?

[FogerRox]

111. I am curious, what is this voter fraud being mentioned ?

Voters are committing fraud, OMG.

Between Iowa and NH, how many undecideds were there in the polls ? 40% ? 20% ?

[robinlynne]

122. I don't think anyone is talking about voter fraud. But thousands of people are talking

about election fraud.

[FogerRox]

123. I have seen the words "voter fraud" here @ DU & over @ Kos

SO much more over the last few days. Seems like a bunch of folks with opinions, that use "Voter Fraud" either intentionally or unwittingly.

I'm sure you have noticed it too.... no ?

[DeepModem Mom]

73. Thanks, Skinner. K&R

[McCamy Taylor]

75. Democratic solidarity trumps Divide and Conquer politics once again!

:dem:

[Joe the Revelator]

85. I would hope that DU wouldn't sweep this type of event under the rug if it happens in the GE

.

[defendandprotect]

137. THEN . . . it's once again too late --- !!!

[davidswanson]

87. GE and Disney reached same decision: It must be right

Why do you mention tracking polls but not exit polls?

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. "a paper trail exists whereby the results could be verified"

By all means, let's keep our powder dry.

I dissent.

[Suich]

89. Thank you!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[althecat]

91. Thankyou Skinner

Dear Skinner and DU,

Somewhat strangely I do not dissent. FWIW this is my opinion.

I am not opposed to Skinner and the other admin's decision but take some issue with part of the reasoning. For clarity - I will continue to donate.

Firstly what I disagree with.
- IMHO there is credible evidence that warrants inquiry - it is not proof but it is extraordinary - and on that ground discussion should be allowed to continue in GD.
- Furthermore while I am not yet convinced that there was fraud in NH by a long shot - I do think that an inquiry and full recount would be hugely beneficial for US democracy if only to underline the fact that yes we are watching and yes we will insist that US democracy is not corrupted by privatisation.

However.

While it would be good if these issues could be discussed civilly in GD they cannot.

Experience has taught us that.

In the past it has taken longer on occasion but these days the people who want to shut down / disrupt the election reform discussion are 1) more numerous and 2) more adept in their tecniques and 3) better motivated. It was always simply a matter of time.

For me once people started shouting "Bev Harris" it was really all over. In GD the words "Bev Harris" are like shouting "Fire" in a cinema. Sad but true. Skinner's experiences with Bev Harris related trouble are numerous and he is understandably wary of giving them oxygen.

Therefore I thank Skinner for handling this delicately an intelligently.

Skinner also deserves considerable credit for his retraction in his thread of a couple of days ago. If more people were able to to this - admit that they are wrong publicly - debate around here would be a great deal more civil.

However and this is the most important reason in my view to thank Skinner.

The Democratic Underground's greatest strength in my mind has been its tolerance to dissent. Where Dkos and others have actually outright banned all discussion of subjects like election reform and 911 DU has learned the hard way how to enable these discussions to continue here.

Democratic Underground has experienced a great deal of criticism for its stance on these issues and us Dummies get called names all around the internet because we dare to discuss here what they cannot on their own spaces.

I know some people are deeply dissappointed with what has happened here today.

My advice to these people is take a deep breath and realise that DU GD is not the holy grail. Discussion has not been stopped it has been moved. And observe that Skinner and the admins have left open a door to allow New Hampshire discussion back into GD if and when evidence that they beleive is credible is adduced.

al

[underpants]

93. How about the Lounge?

:silly:

[pjt7]

97. I was in NH

& felt like there were more Obama voters than Clinton's.

In fact, one hour before the polls closed I had a nice talk with a Hillary NH election worker & she told me that she would be happy with a 3% loss.

1)The fact that the exit polls don't match up is troubling

2)The fact that Obama won over 4% on hand counted vote & lost more than 5% on Diebold machine is trouble

3) Ron Paul got 31 votes in little Sutton county *by hand votes* & it was recorded as Zero in the offical tally

Rather than argue about this, I think they should recount the paper votes for both parties & get it right. NH is a small state & this shouldn't be that big a deal.

[Truth2Tell]

96. What election fraud?

[defendandprotect]

138. Right . . . this has been going on since the mid-1960's . . . !!!!

and, it was only the NOISE of 2000 which woke everyone up -- !!!

We're been suffering this election fraud for decades now --- !!!

[Laelth]

100. Your house, your rules.

So long as DU is not the government (and it's not) our speech may be freely censored, or, if you prefer, moved to a "free speech zone." This move strikes me as heavy-handed and anti-rhetorical (i.e. anti-democratic), but let's face it. It's Skinner's house, and he can do whatever he wants. Nice of him to protect his mods by taking responsibility for the new rule.

:dem:

-Laelth

[HughMoran]

101. Thank you

Sanity is restored to DU - much appreciated!

[mmm413]

102. Being a somewhat newcomer here.

Why are you all so convinced there was voter fraud in NH, but no one seems (like I say I'm new here) outraged about voter fraud in 2000, 2002, and 2004? Are we to really believe that voter fraud in NH is going to matter to anyone? If we question the electoral votes in NH, all we're doing is opening up the door to GOPhers to question the results of the 2008 election. If we have these doubts, don't throw them out there nilly-willy. We cannot let that door be opened. However much we don't like the results in Iowa or New Hampshire or wherever, we cannot broadcast those doubts so that the GOPhers can benefit from them. Whoever winds up being our candidate, we cannot let the republicans take advantage of any doubts we may have. I'm not one of those people who say support the Democrat do or die. But let's not give the republicans any ammunition and the legitimacy of the candidate who runs against theirs.

Cheers

[sam kane]

103. The horse has already left the barn on that one.

Democrats have spent lots of time questioning the results of 2000 and 2004, here and elsewhere. It is not like a criticism of Diebold in NH will be the first.

[althecat]

104. You are a newcomer.... we have been outraged about 2000, 02,04&06 since 2002.

This is not new.... thats why it causes such heightened emotions.

[pjt7]

105. NH is very small

& therefore very easy to re-count & examine.

Apparently, Ron Paul people feel wronged & are sending someone to do a re-count. I would hope this holds for all candidates.

I realize this is an emotional issue, but Democrats need to get control over their emotions & look into this.

[althecat]

115. I agree. And apparently Kucinich is actively considering asking for a recount.

[althecat]

116. He has done so.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/

[defendandprotect]

127. Talking about 2000 is naive --- we've had these steals going back to the mid-1960's . . .

ALL computer theft of elections ---

[FogerRox]

112. Try election fraud

Not Voter fraud.

[Diane R]

106. This is disappointing.

[robinlynne]

113. Skinner, to be accurate: It is not an alleged discrepancy between the polls

and the outcome. It is a de facto discrepancy.

And two political candidates have challenged the results and requested a recount. one Democrat and one Republican.

All over the world, when there is a discrepancy between the polls and the vote count, people of good request recounts. It is the correct thing to do. Accurate vote counting, along with the right to vote are the very foundation of democracy. You cannot have one without the other.

[Usrename]

118. Next you'll be arguing that facts are evidence.

Like the fact that that there is a significant difference between the handcounted precincts and those that were machine counts.

But that's not evidence of anything.

Or, the fact that the pollsters could have included this information in the tab data on election night, but they did not.

Just more facts, that they intentionally refused to include the most interesting bits from the data they released.

That's not evidence of anything either.

What is wrong with you?

[7 of 11]

117. The explanation is all too simple

Hillary won because her supporters came out in droves to save their Lady.

I called it like a charm the day before the election and wish I had said something: Losing Iowa to Obama was like taking a baseball bat to a hornets nest. Hillary supporters felt totally threaten of losing the chance for the nomination and came out in mass to support their candidate. I think if she had come real close in Iowa(say a 39% to 37% finish) she would have lost in NH too by about as much. But to come in a far off third place finish behind Edwards was too much for Hillary's supporters to take sitting. So they got up and went to the polls.

Pollsters ask potential voters if they will vote in the primaries and if they got a no response they would hang up. Well it was these no sayers that got up and voted for Hillary anyways.


Nuff said N/T.

[Usrename]

119. Does your view of the results explain this anomaly?

Update: Some more statistics from the data shows that Obama in non-Diebold towns garnering 38.7% of the vote to Clinton's 36.2%. The results in Diebold towns show the exact opposite: Clinton with 40.7% of the vote and Obama with 36.2%. Not only are the positions swapped but the informal statistics have the second place candidate holding 36.2% in both cases, which could easily be a pure coincidence. What doesn't make a lot of sense to me right now and this could be a mathematical mistake on my part is where Clinton got the extra 2% of votes in Diebold towns. All the other numbers almost exact for every candidate, even Edwards who recieved 17% of the vote in Diebold towns compared to 17.6% in non-Diebold towns. That still doesn't make up for the extra 2% vote Clinton is receiving when she leads in certain towns compared to when Obama has the lead.

Update II: Another thing to keep in mind when looking at these statistics is that the Diebold machines create a 7 point difference (+4.5 for Clinton, -2.5 for Obama) which is exactly what the polls had been predicting. Again, I'm not explicitly stating there has been fraud, but in a supposed democracy such as ours, skepticism is a virtue and necessity.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5540

[Usrename]

120. I hope you don't regret this stand you are taking.

There seems to be a lot of evidence if you ask me.

As a matter of fact, the only rational explanation I have heard is that the vote count was hacked in the machines.

Why isn't that explanation (the most likely explanation) a rational one?

And candidates ARE calling for a hand count.

[FogerRox]

124. Evidence is what got the '04 recount convictions in Ohio

Evidence, suitable for legal action is whats needed.

Yes, there are many indicators that suggest election fraud, indicators that call for further investigation.

[defendandprotect]

128. This is another fear-based decision which takes information out of the general area ---

and will leave the whole of DU members less well informed ---

[Joe the Revelator]

139. This thread should not have been moved to election reform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x493172

To quote the OP:

If someone actually has some real evidence to support the claims of fraud or machine malfunction, then we'll be glad to let this discussion back into the General Discussion forums. But unless that happens, I think the time has come to take a break.

[MH1]

140. Agree. Demonstrated voter suppression should be fair game.

And if it wasn't voter suppression, then it was just ugly tactics, and it is not an "election fraud" discussion at all, is it?

I had assumed that this post by Skinner referred to theories that the vote count was hacked. The thread about blocking GOTV is an entirely different topic.

[IndianaGreen]

141. I suggest you address this issue directly to Admin

I believe there is an e-mail address that you can send your concerns.

[Joe the Revelator]

143. I've sent them before and got no reply

Not even a screw you, Wolsh. Kind of makes you lose faith in the system.

[dailykoff]

142. Demonstrated and documented in the Washington Post

no less. This is a serious pattern of malfeasance that we ignore at our great peril.

[Joe the Revelator]

144. It was very clearly new information. Somebody needs to answer for why the thread was supressed

with over 30 reccomendations.