NH CONTEST: DIEBOLD MISCOUNTS FOUND ON FIRST DAY, MEMORY CARDS 'MISSING', ERROR REPORTS; More...

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG


NH CONTEST: DIEBOLD MISCOUNTS REPORTED ACROSS MANY CANDIDATES, WARDS, IN FIRST DAY OF ELECTION CONTEST HAND COUNTS
Also: Diebold Memory Cards Unaccounted For; Public Record Request by Election Integrity Advocates on Ground Reveal 550+ Votes Read as Blank by Op-Scanner in Stratham
Clinton, Kucinich Observers There, Nobody from Obama or Edwards, Says Election Attorney...

--Blogged by Brad Friedman from on the road..
(As mentioned in previous items, I'm now on the road, and doing my best to keep up while moving. So apologies for the terse reports for the moments, as I continue to roll and have limited time online.)

LATEST OUT OF NH: Disparities being found during first day of ballot hand counts, in many wards, many candidates. Diebold op-scan memory cards unaccounted for at the moment, SoS doesn't track them after elections, doesn't track error reports during elections. LHS Associates handles all of it instead, according to reports on the ground. Public records request reveals hundreds of ballots in one area scanned as blank due to incorrect ink used on ballots, and other problems on LHS problem report forms.

FULL DETAILS, COUNT DISPARITIES, PROBLEM REPORTS,
QUOTES FROM SOURCES ON THE GROUND etc.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5568


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5568

[midnight]

1. It looks like we have not learned anything from the last several

stolen elections.

[wintersoulja]

215. Now, who is going to reimburse Kucinich?

Dont leave him to cover the expense. That would be the wrong thing to do.

[riqster]

286. Donate to Kooch's campaign

That's what I did.

[txaslftist]

236. Of course we have.

We've learned they can get away with it and nobody will stop them.

[papau]

251. Almost no changes so far -but we do have the expected Brad headline -lol

[txaslftist]

252. Even if the hand recount reveals fraud, they'll "fix" it and

everything will be sunshine and light and happiness and forgotten.

As if we live in a democracy when 4 media giants determine who gets to debate, two conglomerate party leadership structures owned whole hog by corporations choose the candidates and corporations in bed with each other count the votes.

What a joke.

[papau]

267. random audits-not paper ballots as paper trail is enough-stops election theft because fear of jail

we need mandatory random audits of the paper trail of all elections for every election.

[Selatius]

2. Wow, talk about shitty hardware. NH got ripped off by Diebold, and democracy suffers.

This will only hurt the democratic process if people feel that their votes won't count.

[mwb970]

96. Why do we keep using these "high tech" voting systems?

They are so vulnerable to error! This story reports that hundreds of ballots registered as blank because the wrong kind of pen was used. This dependency on getting every one of dozens of details exactly right, every time, is going to completely sink the credibility of our elections. (Kenya, anyone?)

Here's a thought. Paper ballots, marked with a pencil and counted by human beings, then stored away for a possible recount.

Anyone who has ever used a computer knows we must not trust them (especially in the hands of private corporations, and with secret source code) for this important function. Duh!

[LiberalFighter]

115. If they are not counted the machine should spit it out so the ballot can be checked.

[Tesha]

124. The problem with that is that an undervote can be deliberate.

> If they are not counted the machine should spit it out so the ballot can be checked.

The problem with that is that an undervote can be deliberate.
On my NH Primary ballot, I cast a vote for John Edwards
for President, but I *DID NOT VOTE* in the race for
Vice President. I didn't know either of the two candidates
and I feel that race is meaningless anyway.

So I was a deliberate undervote and I wanted my ballot
accepted in that condition (and it was).

The machines were programmed to catch over-votes, though.
The woman casting her ballot ahead of me had filled in the
oval (I didn't notice for whom) but also made a small slash
that continued off to the right from the oval; perhaps she
made a check mark first and then "blobbed in" the rest of
the oval. The machine rejected her ballot several times
before eventually accepting it but the election workers
were ready to consider her ballot "spoiled", mark it so,
and provide her with a new ballot had the problem continued.

Tesha

[LiberalFighter]

133. I was referring to a ballot with no votes.

It was my impression from the op that the ink used was creating a problem with all of the marks on the ballot not being recognized.


To ensure that this doesn't go unnoticed in future elections they should require an inspection of the ballots after the completion of the election. In each polling location the first 20 ballots, last 20 ballots and an additional 20 ballots in one or two locations in the middle of the stack pulled out for inspection.

[Tesha]

137. Test ballots are filled-in and run.

Test ballots are filled-in and run at each polling station
(because, for example, the optical scanner in an individual
machine can get dirty).

Are entirely-blank ballots rejected? It depends on how
the machine is programmed for *THAT* election (and I
have no data on how the machines were set for this
particular election in that regard).

I've seen the BradBlog claim about the ink and astonishing
numbers of unread ballots but the numbers from the recount
so far don't seem to support any of that hyperventilating.

Tesha

[tblue37]

117. I saw this message exchange on a tech blog yesterday:

It seemed to me to sum up a lot of what is wrong in elections--and in school--these days:

HELP>>> I am looking for something very inexpensive and light for my daughter to take to college, just for taking notes in class. Something she can use in class and then transfer to her main laptop.

Response: Try a pen and paper.

[mwb970]

141. That's a good one!

What was the questioner thinking of, some kind of Blackberry or whatever it is? Can you imagine taking class notes (especially with diagrams, graphs, etc.) with that, or even on a laptop? Sheesh.

[tblue37]

232. Over the past two years I have several students

in my classes have begun using notebook computers to take their notes. Up until two years ago I never saw it--now I see almost as many with computers as with pen and paper.

But then many of these kids are helpless when it comes time to write in class essays or exams, because they so seldom write with pen and paper that they are almost unable to do so. They write very slowly, their hands cramp up, and their handwriting is illegible--all because they almost never use anything but computers!

They beg to use computers for their in-class essays and exams, but then I point out that there would be no way for me to ensure that they weren't bringing in an essay that was written at home or a file with all the necessary information for responding to exam questions.

I am appalled that they ahve been allowed to become so incompetent at using the most basic tools of writing!

[Tesha]

129. Here in NH, we use optically-scanned paper ballots because:

> Why do we keep using these "high tech" voting systems?

Here in NH, we use optically-scanned paper ballots because:

1. The machines have actually proven to be pretty reliable
at accurately counting an election. They're raw error rate
is similar to the error rate you can expect from a human
elections worker.

2. The machines are very fast; unlike with a hand count,
the tallies are available immediately upon locking up
the poll. This also translates to less expense in hiring
poll workers.

3. The machines automatically reject "overvotes", allowing
the voter to correct their error. With a hand count, a
ballot with an "overvote" *MUST* be discarded from that
election's count.

4. On a ballot with a single election/race on it, the
machines can automatically reject "undervotes". Same effect.

5. The paper trail (the actual paper ballots) provides a
secure means to recount any election.

There's plenty of upside and no *REAL* downside.

Tesha

[LiberalFighter]

135. They should allow an undervote even if there is only one race or issue on the ballot.

That in effect is a "None of the above" vote and voters should have the right to vote even if they don't actually vote for approved candidates by not selecting anyone.

[Tesha]

144. They may; it's programmable for each election. (NT)

[LiberalFighter]

206. The programming at the election board should all be done by them

and not a software representative.

Every option needed in the election should be included in the software with the election board able to set up the election on their own.

[Wilms]

157. "no *REAL* downside"???

Are you going to argue that Optical Scans weren't involved in elections where the result was flipped and happened to get caught? Who knows how often that happened?

Are you saying that it's really cheaper than hand-counts when you factor in all the expenses related to buying, programming, maintaining, storing, transporting, and repairing these machines?

[AikidoSoul]

204. Have you really studied this in depth?

What about the problems with the computerized tabulators? You seem to assume
that optical scans are o.k., but really, are your judgments made because of
of hand count verification? Is a percentage of hand counting to
verify the accuracy of optical scan ballots mandated in your state?

Most likely not.

Voting laws in many states make it nearly impossible to do hand counts. Even
recounting is most often done by machine... and I don't know of any of
those machines can't be tampered with.

[Tesha]

208. I've written to the Secretary of State about this.

> Is a percentage of hand counting to verify the accuracy
> of optical scan ballots mandated in your state?
>
> Most likely not.

I don't know, but I've already written to Bill Gardner,
our Secretary of State, calling for exactly this sort
of random, post-election auditing of all counts (hand
and machine).

In NH, our recounting is definitely done by hand using
a strict and fair procedure.

Tesha

[truedelphi]

216. Some of your points are valid. But some are not.

And you ignore the important thing. These machines are hackable.

I dislike your approving of point three because in this day and age many commentators make the remark about the quickness of knowing the Vote Results.

Uh, the purpose of an election is NOT to know the results quickly. The purpose is to democratically have our votes recorded and counted. Accurately.

Tesha, you seem to totally miss the most important point that these machines are hackable, and that the upgrades suggested by BBV and others were not performed. (My old local Registrar of Voters refused to consider the need to plug up security holes - even though voting activists tried to show him the little bits of maintenance that needed to be done. It also would not have taken much time.)

edited to insert the word "accurately"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

223. No real downside?

I'd say to consecutive stolen presidential elections constitutes a downside.

[galloglas]

249. "we use optically-scanned paper ballots because" ???

1. The machines have actually proven to be pretty reliable
at accurately counting an election. They're raw error rate
is similar to the error rate you can expect from a human
elections worker.

"Proven"?? How would you know. You can't see it happen!

2. The machines are very fast; unlike with a hand count,
the tallies are available immediately upon locking up
the poll. This also translates to less expense in hiring
poll workers.

"The machines are very fast;"

Obviously the most important aspect of any democracy, huh?

"unlike with a hand count,the tallies are available immediately upon locking up the poll."

And all of the evidence is carted away by your Diebold vendor in the form of the memory card? Nice chain of custody!

3. The machines automatically reject "overvotes", allowing
the voter to correct their error. With a hand count, a
ballot with an "overvote" *MUST* be discarded from that
election's count.

Which takes care of this type problem??

"in Stratham there were some 550 ballots that were not read by the op-scan at all. They were seen as blank ballots. Officials there noticed the problem, and then hand-counted some 3000 ballots after the error was discovered.

Apparently, as we've seen elsewhere, voters were given the wrong pen to use and the op-scanners did not "see" this particular type of ink."

4. On a ballot with a single election/race on it, the
machines can automatically reject "undervotes". Same effect.

See #3 Same effect.

5. The paper trail (the actual paper ballots) provides a
secure means to recount any election.

Oh, really??

And where have those "actual paper ballots" been staying at while SoS Bill Gardner has been trying to deny recounts to both GOP and DEM candidates??

I called the "Secure Chain of Custody Vote Hotel" and they have no record of any NH ballots having been checked in. They suggested I call LHS's John Silvestro and talk to him... unless all the "snow" in NH had caused Silvestro and employees to "blow" town.



There's plenty of upside and no *REAL* downside.

Oh, yeah. I'll bet LHS is really "up" about this. On a real high, as it were.

But the recount might prove a "real downer" to someone!

[TheMadMonk]

281. Your main objections would apply to a non-computerised system....

...where the probity of election officials is in question. Which situation is the case pretty much right across your nation.

1) proven absolutely? No. Demonstrated to an acceptable level of confidence in the context of a properly overseen race? Yes.
Optiscan devices are too "stupid" to be compromised in a fashion that doesn't stand out like dog's balls. It is DREs that "do the lot" which have been caught switching votes. Optiscans just tally marks on a sheet of paper.

2) Instant count. Blame the American desire for instant satisfaction as much as the media's for instant reporting. It's a selling point, entirely because it is a selling point that has mass appeal.

3) approved hardness of pencil or ink colour are common requirements even for hand counted ballots. Hard pencil marks can be difficult to see clearly. Soft pencil marks can smear. Red pen can be difficult to see by the light of a setting sun. And even when visible they do slow the counting process and add to the eystrain of the counter.

4) "This page intentionally left blank." addresses that problem.

3&4) A spoiled ballot is a lost ballot in a hand count. End of story.

5) A crooked election remains crooked regardless of the system used.


Proper oversight is the only way to ensure the honesty of an election, and you don't got that period. No amount of pissing and moaning about the mechanics of the system is going to make a whit of difference.

[galloglas]

287. We don't disagree

Proper oversight is the only way to ensure the honesty of an election, and you don't got that period. No amount of pissing and moaning about the mechanics of the system is going to make a whit of difference.

The oversight, and control, in NH is abysmal. But the pissing and moaning is being done by the defenders of the NH processes. To the extent of email flying hither and yon to try to BEG, WHEEDLE, or THREATEN both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich into forgoing their Constitutional rights to ask for a recount.

A bit over the top wouldn't you say???

I would beg to differ on the reliability of OpScan over DRE, but that is largely a technical matter. Your words properly overseen race being the key.

In this nation, where so much is at stake (or there to be grabbed and had, if you like) there is no oversight which is adequate, IMHO, other than citizen overseen hand counted paper ballots, counted in front of citizenry, press, and other interested mammals, and with the totals nailed to the door of the precinct before anyone leaves.

[HughMoran]

255. Excellent summary

Looks like undervotes weren't rejected in this election, though they seem to be relatively evenly distributed as you might expect...

[dglow]

265. opti-scanners

Opti-scanners have been proven to be just as hackable as touch screen machines. There needs to be transparent random pre and post audits to ensure accurate counts.

[Peace Patriot]

278. I understand that NH has NO audit (automatic recount of any % of the ballots).

This means that 100% of the ballots are never counted - except in a recount situation (and most states do, say, only a 3% recount of selected precincts). (--not sure what % NH is doing in this recount.)

I don't understand how you can find this tolerable. You are depending upon a known, partisan, Bushite corporations, to "count your votes" (that is, count some electrons), and tell you who won, with not even the miserably inadequate 1% audit that is done in the best states. (Kathy Dobbs - a stats expert - says that a 5% to 10% audit is the minimum necessary to detect fraud).

The system is nuts. You THINK it is secure because there is a paper ballot but THAT IS NOT WHAT IS 'COUNTED.' It is completely INSECURE.

[DLnyc]

149. I agree, but please say pen, not pencil

Obviously, pencil is subject to erasure and alteration. Paper ballots, hand marked by pen, counted by hand, sounds good to me.

[intheflow]

165. LOL!

I was reading the thread when you posted this, didn't refresh my screen, and then I asked the same thing right after you!
Really, what is up with wanting pencils? :wtf:

[intheflow]

158. Question about using pencils on ballots.

I've seen this suggestion before, to use pencils on ballots. Of course I'm all for getting rid of the dastardly machines, but why not use ink on hand-counted ballots? Seems to me that pencil could be erased from ballots and marked anew, once again contributing to election fraud. Is there a reason why we should champion pencil over ink?
:shrug:

[Tesha]

182. Appropriate pens are provided in the voting booths in NH. (NT)

[ooglymoogly]

226. so the pugs can win elections

Only 25% of the Murkin population are gullible and stupid enough to vote for their own demise.

[Tesha]

227. Strangely enough, here in NH, our optical scanning machines actually work.

> so the pugs can win elections

Strangely enough, here in NH, our optical scanning machines
actually work (as we're now proving).

Perhaps it's because 1) many New Hampshire citizens take
a very strong interest in our government and 2) even the
Republicans in the state seem to understand that running
rotten elections is a knife that cuts many ways.

Tesha

[AikidoSoul]

234. you say the fraud potentially "cuts both ways"? With Diebold owning the

tabulation machines? :think:

Er....that would only be true if Diebold was owned by both partisan Dems and partisan Repugs.

As it is now Diebold is owned by partisan Repugs only. If only Repugs have access to the machines, how
can it cut "both ways"?

Getting ALL machines out of the counting business -- at least as the SOLE counter of votes -- would be the
best solution. RANDOM hand counting of optical scan ballots would be essential to insure the accuracy
of any machine tally. The trouble is that most of the states have not taken that precaution.

And the chain-of-custody issue is still a big issue in all states including New Hampshire. Who had access to the
paper ballots? Was it the contractor? The state?

What's to stop Repug operatives from stuffing the boxes with pre-filled-out optical scan votes? Any
well run thievery would include taking precautions to make sure any recount does not fully expose
the thievery... by having the count come close to the same numbers as that of the official tally
by the tabulation machines.

[Tesha]

245. The principal cut against the Republicans is that if Americans stop believing in elections...

The principal immediate cut against the Republicans is
that if Americans stop believing in elections, we just
might get out the guillotines. We *CERTAINLY* might
finally come around to understanding exactly what
happened in 2000.

It wouldn't be pretty.

And, of course, they'll worry that we'll steal an
election from *THEM*!


> And the chain-of-custody issue is still a big issue
> in all states including New Hampshire. Who had access
> to the paper ballots? Was it the contractor? The state?

Contrary to what you've read on the blogs, there haven't
been any significant issues raised about "chain of custody".
The Manchester ballots went from the optiscan machines to
the City Clerk's vault and from that vault to the State
records building where the recount is taking place.

Tesha

[AikidoSoul]

288. You are representing the state

You must be. Otherwise you wouldn't ignore the documented disruptions in chain-of-custody
reported by several activists. Bev Harris also posted about this on BradBlog and at
BlackBox Voting.

I'm sorry. You are one person and I tend to believe what Friedman, Harris and others are
saying about lack of security and no legal chain-of-custody. In any legal situation a
chain-of-custody is extraordinarily important. So is our democratic process which has
been outsourced to private corporatons and all semblance of security thrown out the window.

Instead of defending them you should be writing up suggestions on how the system
can be made more secure.

New Hampshire is better than most states but it still has its weak spots, and it
looks as though every one of those weak spots were exploited by those private
companies with Diebold equipment.

[Tesha]

289. Actually, so far, the data suggest that *EXACTLY NONE* of the various problems...

> New Hampshire is better than most states but it still has its weak spots, and it
> looks as though every one of those weak spots were exploited by those private
> companies with Diebold equipment.

Actually, so far, the data suggest that *EXACTLY NONE*
of the various small problems that have been discovered
represent a deliberate effort by *ANYONE* to influence
the election.

All the bloviating by all the bloggers is exactly
that: baseless bloviating.

Tesha

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Recount page

You can keep up with whose counts are doing what:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm

Brad mentioned it on his page, but that he hasn't had time to review it in full yet.

--p!

[Old_Growth]

7. Hillary's

Recount is higher than the first... so far.
Seems to be a bit higher for others too.

[KittyWampus]

11. So is Edwards' and Kucinich's & Obama's. MEMORY CARDS are missing. So we've no idea if original #'s

were just totally fabricated.

[Tesha]

85. Have you looked at the numbers? There are no dramatic changes so far...

> So we've no idea if original #'s were just totally fabricated.

Have you looked at the numbers? There are no dramatic changes
so far, mostly just small gains pretty-evenly distributed for
everyone. (This occurs because ballots marked in unusual ways
may not have been counted by the opti-scanners. For example
one Clinton ballot was described as having had her name chosen
not by filling in the oval next to her name but by having circles
drawn at the left and right of her name.)

Tesha

[rhett o rick]

101. And your point is? nm

[Tesha]

109. My point is that the original machine count was fair and unbiased. (NT)

[paparush]

222. And you know this, how?

Did you program the machines?

Are you doing the hand recount?

Do you work for LHS? I'm beginning to think you do.

If not, I'm beginning to wonder what you have against a hand recount?

[rhett o rick]

263. I think her candidate won. So she is certain the process is ok. nm

[Lerkfish]

258. unless and until you recount them, you cannot say that

I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.
When you receive change at the grocery store, do you shove it in your pocket without counting? does the fact that you don't count it automatically make it accurate?

[truedelphi]

217. But if memory cards are indeed missing, then the counts are meaningless.

I really really wish that logic was still taught on the high school or junior college level.

[alfredo]

118. Republican and Dem votes would be on the same card.

[Patsy Stone]

44. Thanks for that link!

:toast:

[Marie26]

126. Doesn't seem to be any big discrepancies so far.

Why the huge explosive headline?

[Marie26]

191. So wait

He posted this incredibly hysterical article about the recount without looking at the recount results first? LOL.

[TCJ70]

239. So there are minor discrepencies across the board...

...what does this prove so far? (I added the "so far" because it's not over yet)

I have no candidate locked down yet, so I have no stake in this. As far as I can tell, everything seems to be fine so far.

[HughMoran]

253. Thanks for the link

I didn't realize the SoS had a live site up.

[ORDagnabbit]

5. hey where are all the "its a waste of time" posters? n/t

[Teaser]

8. Here's one

But I'm wasting my time here discussing this waste of time.

But keep it up. I need the lulz.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RuleOfNah]

27. "Has the recount been justified?"

I'll go with maybe for now. I was pro-recount before, during, and after.

The missing, candidate based, memory cards is quite compelling. Is it fair to say that NH has been working on the quality of their voting system? Is it fair to say that NH was in the National spotlight and was expected to be on best behavior? Is it fair to say that memory cards should not be missing? Is it fair to say that this embarrassing situation was predictable?

[Bonobo]

33. Well I will recap that deleted message.

I told the poster to either answer the question of whether or not the recount was justified or admit to being a blowhard (in other words).

Thank you for your reasoned response to the recount naysayer I was originally asking the question to.

[RuleOfNah]

37. "reasoned response", Me? :)

No problem. I can guess why your message was moderated. It crossed the attack line in a thread discussing a topic that DU considers controversial. I don't like censorship, just trying to be clear about my understanding of the current situation.

I was replying to the less inflammatory <edit: portion of> your post before the moderation so your post wasn't there when I finished my post. And then the whole thread was moved to the dungeon. Ironic (or something like irony). :)

[defendandprotect]

40. How can anything be "controversial" about the reports from an official recount---????

[RuleOfNah]

46. I didn't say controversial.

I was attributing that generalized opinion of vote audits to DU, because of something I read in a skinner post (or something else recently official-ish). I am sorry if that was incorrect.

Perhaps I should have used the word divisive?

This is what I think about the general issue: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RuleOfNah/4

[defendandprotect]

50. Actually, you did . . .

And I thought your actual quote below was right on ---

in a thread discussing a topic that DU considers controversial.

and I was asking . . .

"How can DU consider an official recount/audit controversial" ---

YES, they consider it "divisive," as well ---

so are many other subjects where we don't all agree --



Re your LINK . . .
obviously the public gets it ---
and obviously the Democrats are largely ignoring the issues of computer voting ---
and the fraudulent elections we've been suffering ---
and, btw, the machines began to come in during the mid-1960's . . . !!!

[BradBlog]

59. Thank you RuleofNah!

LOVED the journal post you linked to! Bless you!

(May even quote it on BRAD BLOG if I'm ever lucky enough to find a day when there's room for it!)

[RuleOfNah]

64. Glad to be of service. Thank you for BradBlog and defending our votes!

:blush:

I feel star struck. The red siren dude (or a local avatar being a striking resemblance thereof) digs something I wrote. It must feel a little like what Naomi Klein felt, while being interviewed by Randy Rhodes about her book. Rhodes says she was hanging out having drinks with Tim Robbins when Klein's name comes up. Klein says, "Tim Robbins talks about me when he is drunk? That is so cool!". Yes, I know, I am no Naomi but Brad isn't as hot as Randy. ;)

[lynnertic]

142. way to insist on the last word... recapping a deleted subthread...

[bhikkhu]

56. recounts are always justified

should be mandatory, imho, even if winners are already seated. The issue is whether the voting and counting processes are accurate and effective, and without recounts there will be neither verification or improvement. Without recounts and confidence in the process, all sorts of obnoxious things are inevitable.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Marie26]

121. Hi!

I do think that Hillary won the NH election fair & square, but IMO the recount is a good way to stop the baseless rumors/allegations that the election was stolen. Of course, even if the recount shows the same results, that probably won't stop people from spinning conspiracy theories.

[polmaven]

148. Bingo!

It has become clear that the heads of the Hillary Haters will probably explode if the recount result doesn't go their way any more than the original result.

Let's see....."Well, the people assigned obviously need to learn how to count" may be brought up.

Sheeesh!

[Kurovski]

6. K&R. Heartfelt thanks to Brad and all those working so diligently in this matter.

Election protectors, not Diebold (Premier). Just wanted to be clear on whose diligence I'm appreciating here. ;-)

[Bonobo]

18. I second that a million times -that's err...2 million!

[hootinholler]

68. Hmmm is your thanks counter made by diebold? n/t

[KittyWampus]

9. Automatic Recounts triggered by .5% margin between 2 leading candidates yet Diebold's margin is 1%

Diebold's margin of error is at least 1%.

But automatic recounts only happen if the machines say there is a supposed .5% margin between 2 leading candidates.

HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT?

[Bonobo]

16. Yeah, and they have to be requested by the loser, setting up the appearance of Sour Grapes!

AND they are unreasonably expensive!

[niceypoo]

30. Obama supporters just cant get enough of that deeeeliciouss crow!

[Recursion]

31. Do you equate "hand-count advocates" with "Obama supporters"?

That would be news to me.

[niceypoo]

235. No, I am speaking about the kneejerk reaction, by many Obama supporters, to Hillarys win

You know, the usual hysterics that we have learned to expect from them anytime things dont go right for St Obama. "Hillary stole the election!" or my favorite, "The sky is falling!"

[Bonobo]

47. Funny that, I am an Edwards supporter.

But mostly I am for honest elections. Imagine that!

[Warren Stupidity]

70. I'm a verified open election process supporter.

Aren't you?

[fascisthunter]

94. I Am a Kucinich Supporter in Favor of Transparency in our Elections

[f the letter]

107. Plus one more Kucinicher in favor of watching elections more closely n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

114. You know what?

Election integrity is not, nor ever has been a partisan issue. I'm sure people have explained this to you -- my guess is several times. Are you not getting it on purpose or is there a truly a comprehension problem here?

[kster]

10. K&R.nt

[yourout]

12. Hillary actually picking up votes....the counts for both Hillary and Obama do not match in most...

cases.

Edwards totals are close granted there are less votes to be off.

All in all machines are a shitty way to count votes.

[kster]

14. Hand Count the Paper Ballots in the first place...nt

[yourout]

15. My point exactly.

[Bonobo]

17. Totally irrelevant to some of us. Totally.

[Recursion]

20. Ole Savior lost a vote

Poor guy.

[Bonobo]

21. Guess you still don't understand what this is about. Maybe some day...

How old are you? You may figure it out before you die even, if you're still relatively young.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. "Savior" is one of the minor candidates

--p!

[Recursion]

23. Calm the **** down

I've been very consistently pro-recount since the primary.

I just was feeling bad for Ole since 25% of his support in the state was a ballot reading error.

[Bonobo]

24. Fine then. I will calm the *** down.

That is pretty sad.

[Recursion]

25. Come to think of it, why are we calling this a "re"count?

This is the first time the ballots have actually been counted, no?

[Bonobo]

34. Good point. I think audit is perhaps a good phrase for it. It has a good ring.

[newburgh]

26. It's not even been 24 hours and this is what we get ALREADY?

The sheeple sleep while democracy dies a slow and painless death. But O.J.'s back in the news!

Meanwhile, a patriotic hero named Brad Friedman, works selflessly for the good of our democracy...

[creeksneakers2]

28. So far, Hillary is winning

Hillary picked up 46 votes, meaning the machines shorted her 46.

Obama picked up a net 14 votes. 19 were not counted by the machines and 5 were counted as votes by the machines that weren't found in the recount.

Edwards picked up 11.

[BradBlog]

60. I should have mentioned...

I should have mentioned in the article (which I had to write far too quickly) that we have NO secure chain of custody records for the ballots being counted.

The Kucinich team, up until now, has not pushed for such records. I recommend they do. Immediately.

Albert Howard, the Republican candidate, had it EXACTLY right in his letter to SoS Gardner about the records needed for a legit vote.

If you haven't seen that letter, you should. It's posted in full at the bottom of this article:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5560

The Kucinich team needs to file on themselves, and fight like hell to make sure the public records requests are answered. In full. Immediately.

Now.

[Recursion]

29. Also, what is "scatter"?

Is that unreadable ballots?

[defendandprotect]

32. Now we have ballots with disappearing ink?

Sounds like a noble successor to the butterfly ballot --- !!!

[Bonobo]

35. Dissappearing posts too.

[althecat]

54. Special magic markers that scanners can't read to be precise...

Now that is some special mojo on those markers methinks...... I'm a tinkin that Galloglas could come over all a quiver around this subject.

[althecat]

55. Is it just me that can't get to the NH SOS site... haven't been for ages...

Perhaps someone who can see the results could post em here regularly.

al

[Bonobo]

36. Serious question: Is BradBlog not an accepted source for LBN? eom

[BradBlog]

62. Have been top LBN posts (and DU front page post) many times. Would love an answer

The mods do a great job here.

That said, I too would like to know why this Breaking News was relegated to the ER forum? Seems like there are new and different rules in play here, that I've not seen before.

Clarification would be much appreciated.

If that post wasn't LBN, I'm not sure what is.

[Le Taz Hot]

120. Agreed, but just to keep it on the Greatest page.

K & R

[juno jones]

259. Doing my bit to keep this thing from sinking into some dungeon somewheres

K&R
This is the crux of the biscuit, as Frank used to say.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

41. Agreed...nt

[newburgh]

42. I second that request!

[althecat]

43. BTW... I am going to the Big Day Out in Auckland tomorrow....

I have an impeach bush hat and rage against the machine are playing! :)

[kster]

51. That looks like

one BIG party. :-)

[althecat]

282. Sure was Kev.....

Will post some pics here....

[althecat]

283. Picture 1... coming down to the main stages... approx 1pm

[althecat]

284. The Boiler Room

[Bonobo]

48. Third.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

49. That post will be deleted too.

Oh, shit, now MINE will be deleted too.

Fuck, let's just throw away this whole thread.

We can just tune into CNN in a few days and it will all have blown over by then.

[Dogmudgeon]

52. Hey, the mods do a great job

It's a tough job, too. I served a term as a mod, when terms were 8 weeks instead of 13, and it was a constant learning experience.

Herding the 113,000 cats that are DU is no easy task!

The conduct of elections is very much a hot topic with everyone I've talked to here. Our concern for favored candidates is brief while our commitment to Democracy is permanent. You are underestimating most of the people here; perhaps you should participate in some of the election reform threads and talk (write) to some of the activists.

So ... am I kissing ass to curry favor? Nope. They won't throw you off unless you're a bona-fide disruptor. You can trust them to hear you out. It's a team effort and there is always someone on your side.

After all, we're Democrats.

--p!

[althecat]

53. Gee... I feel very warm and fuzzy all of a sudden.. but I agree...

Tis a hard job and DU is certainly much better moderated than well really practically anywhere I can think of.

[Patsy Stone]

45. Thanks for the update

K&R!

[tinrobot]

57. Incorrect Ink?

That's a great scam. Put the wrong ink at the precincts that you know will vote for the opposition.

Oops.

[happygoluckytoyou]

58. BUSH MEMORY CARD BROKEN...FORGETS HOW TO BE PRESIDENT

VOTE BY MAIL....

REGISTER NOW....

[BradBlog]

61. Um...re: VOTE BY MAIL (a very bad idea)

You DO realize that Vote-by-Mail ballots are counted by the same unreliable computers that "counted" the ballots in New Hampshire right?

Furthermore, absentee ballots are generally counted when NOBODY is looking at all (if anybody bothers to count them at all).

Vote on PAPER on Election Day at your polling place.

Then make them actually count it (and watch 'em doing so if you can!)

[intheflow]

187. Yeah, I've never understood the whole vote by mail craze.

Seems awfully easy to round file something that's mailed in; who would have oversight of when and how many ballots came in for what candidate? :shrug:

[Norrin Radd]

63. *Gomer Pyle's catch phrase going through my head*

[slay]

65. Thanks for keep us informed on this Brad!

We sooooo need audits of all our elections. Is only fair we know for sure. Great job of keeping this a priority. :yourock:

[BradBlog]

66. Wish I could say "my pleasure"...That said, PLEASE run with the ball!

Issue is still being completely ignored. Even in the supposedly-Progressive blogosphere.

If you can help, please do. Your democracy depends on it right now.

Thanks!

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. Wouldn't it be nice if the winner of an election had the integrity and

patriotism to say, I believe we must have a re-election using paper ballots, while maintaining a strictly enforced legal chain of custody of the votes. It is wholly inappropriate for the purposes of democracy to trust electronic voting machines, least of all private proprietory brands.

The counting of those votes should in turn should be closely invigilated by members of the public (with no Republican thugs, specially flown in or not, being allowed to strong-arm their way to the front. Obviously, a fair and civilised means of selecting the invigilators should be put in place.

[peace13]

73. Beautiful idea.

Unfortunately we have candidates debate at the exclusion of their fellow Democrats. You will not see a 'front runner' here that would do anything but market the victory. The value of doing something because it is the right thing to do is not seen much in the American culture today. Peace, Kim

[Vinca]

69. As someone who voted in the New Hampshire primary,

this is very disturbing. I thought the Republicans could manipulate the vote legally and we wouldn't have voting machine problems, but I couldn't have been more wrong. Fortunately, this is a small state and investigating whatever happened should be easier than in Florida or Ohio.

[Highway61]

71. Really

and the ONE person who pushed for this count and PAID a lot out of his own pocket didn't even get on stage to debate the other night and took a bashing from quite a few right here on DU. Dennis doesn't talk the talk he walks the walk. Damn shame is what it is.

[peace13]

76. Kucinich is pretty amazing.

You are right, he walks the walk. He has been saying and doing the right thing from the start. His record speaks for itself. When will America wake up? Peace, Kim

[lonestarnot]

82. yes it is!

[lonestarnot]

72. hmmmmf. Now what?

[Geek_Girl]

74. What does LHS stand for?

?

[riqster]

79. Lying Hatfulls of Shit nt

[Tesha]

89. "Lynn Haas Services, Inc."

Lynn Haas Services, Inc. of Methuen, MA.

http://www.lhsassociates.com/aboutus.html

(FYI: I have no affiliation with *ANY* vote tabulating
company, but I know how to use Google. I have no af-
filiation with Google, either.)

Tesha

[Geek_Girl]

242. Thanks for the info

:hi:

[JAbuchan08]

75. ***** the naysayers eom

[Infinite Hope]

77. So has anyone sent this to all the mass media outlets? Or any of them? n/t

[riqster]

81. They all get the information

...but have 'other priorities' as Dick Cheney said.

[The Wizard]

78. It's this serious.

When voters can't be sure if their franchise is guaranteed, democracy cannot survive.

[riqster]

80. Here is the takeaway from Day One:

<1> The SOS has abdicated all responsibility to the private sector. The government has lost control of the election process.

"ASk LHS" is the response to every key question. The memory cards are a perfect example: "LHS may have erased them, binned them, we don't know, we don't care, not our job" is the gist of the SOS's response.

This is why recounts are always a good idea: the delegate allocations will likely remain the same, but the rights of the voter will be strengthened in the end.

[Tarc]

83. so all in all, nothing serious has been found

And their original poster and his headlines are wildly hysteric.

About as much as I expected from this.

[yourout]

84. The 70+ peoples votes that did not get counted might think it was serious.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Tesha]

87. Thank you; that's my impression as well.

The small vote gains are occuring because humans are
more capable than the computers at interpreting "the
intent of the voter" on some really-weirdly-marked
ballots.

All else is proving to pretty much be "in order".

But you understand this won't stop the debate, right?
Because certain people just aren't interested in/
connected with reality.

Tesha

[riqster]

92. All else is certainly NOT in order.

The ballots were not secured after the election, nor were the memory cards.

These are serious violations of procedure: in many other states (even Ohio), they would be violations of law.

[Tesha]

93. Bullshit.

The ballots were secured; they were locked in vaults in the
various City/Town clerk's offices. We saw video of the ballots
being removed from the safe in the Manchester City Clerk's
office and I have complete confidence that Paul Bergeron,
the Nashua City Clerk took the same trouble to secure
our ballots.

The level of paranoia in all of these threads is truly scary!

Do folks really believe that every election official in the
entire State of New Hampshire is "in" on this? Every city
and town clerk? Every ward worker? The Secretary of State,
who has served continuously under both Republican and Democratic
Governors since 1976? Just how big a conspiracy are you going
to try to sell us?

It's far more likely that the election was fair and accurate.

Tesha

[riqster]

95. You are the one who is extrapolating, not I

...by saying since you saw one set of ballots being removed from a safe, everybody did the same thing.

You KNOW NOTHING about electronic voting. It does not require "every election official" to be in on it. It requires ONE person to fix an election.

Further, I did not say that there was a huge conspiracy. I said that nobody knows for sure, and that is unacceptable. If faith-based voting is your cup of tea, you're in good shape.


Finally, welcome to my ignore list.

[Tesha]

98. You would be wrong in that assumption.

> You KNOW NOTHING about electronic voting. It does not require
> "every election official" to be in on it. It requires ONE person
> to fix an election.

You would be wrong in your assumption of what I know
about electronic voting.


> Further, I did not say that there was a huge conspiracy. I said
> that nobody knows for sure, and that is unacceptable.

Strangely enough, so far the results of the recount show
that the original count was pretty accurate. So if we want
to continue entertaining the thought that the NH Primary
was tampered with, we're now forced to accept that either:

o Manchester is unstolen but other places were, or

o A wide-spread conspiracy has tampered with the
ballots to make sure that the Manchester recount
matches the original electronic count (more-or-less).

Personally, I find either of those suppositions unsupportable.
And as more and more precencts are recounted, they will
become less and less supportable. But I'm sure you and
others will continue to come up with hypotheses as to
how the election was stolen. Wake me up when you get to
"Martians beamed ballots into the office safes!"

Tesha

[Apollo11]

105. Even if "the original count was pretty accurate" - is that good enough?

I think we should be aiming for as close to 100% accurate as is humanly possible.

This is possible using technology that has already been tried and tested over several centuries. For example in England and other countries where they have paper ballots counted by hand in full view of observers who are nominated by each of the candidates.

[Tesha]

108. No (sufficiently large) count done by humans is ever "completely accurate".

> I think we should be aiming for as close to 100% accurate as is humanly possible.

I aggree, but I've participated in recounts and one thing I
can assure you of is that no (sufficiently large) count done
by humans is ever "completely accurate". Count ten thousand
things by hand several times and you'll probably get an answer
that varies by a few counts each time, no matter how carefully
you do the count.

And all this is being done for $0.24/ballot with every
ballot requiring the complete attention of at least two
state workers.


> This is possible using technology that has already been tried
> and tested over several centuries. For example in England and
> ther countries where they have paper ballots counted by hand
> in full view of observers who are nominated by each of the
> candidates.

Essentially, this is what is being done in the recount process
right now. But only two Democratic camps (Kucinich and Clinton)
bothered to send observers. And so far, the results are proving
out that even if the vote tallies increase a little (~0.4% right
now), the percentages of votes attributable to each candidate
are holding remarkably stable, indicating that there was no
systemic bias in the machine count.

Tesha

[rosetta627]

275. Hi Tesha, I'm new to DU

You'll be the first person on my ignore list.

[Tesha]

276. Okay. But you "ignore" actual facts at your own risk.

As it is, a lot of people here on these election recount
threads don't seem to be too "reality based".

Tesha

[Tarc]

102. You're the one lying, not he

Claims that they were unsecured are rather groundless. You keep saying that "no one knows for sure", yet you reach and grasp for the wildest possible outcomes, rather than the simpler explanations and reasons.

[Tarc]

103. Duplicate

...

[xiamiam]

111. oh there you are again, throwing democracy under the bus...nt

[fascisthunter]

88. Thank You Brad for Doing Something Important

We had our doubts about the voting processin NH and now we know we have to do something to change it.

[paparush]

90. Can we Subpoena LHS Associates NOW??????

For the love of god..c'mon!

I'd love to find one of those cards that hasn't been wiped or re-programmed!

Its time! Its time to END THIS FUCKING ARRANGEMENT of private companies managing public elections.

[Tesha]

91. Why? So far, the recount is confirming the count. (NT)

[paparush]

100. Diebold Memory Cards Unaccounted For

These cards hold the code..the code that can (not saying it has..but CAN) change votes.

Where are the cards?

Why are they missing?

Who has them?

When and why were they removed?

These questions need answering.

[Tesha]

104. But the code *DIDN'T* change votes (as we're now proving).

Yes, it would be nice if the memory cards were preserved,
at least until the onset of the next election.

But right now, there appears to be *NO FAULT* in the
code in the cards so their current location is immaterial.

And they're probably not actually "missing", they probably
just haven't been asked for by the Powers that Be. If you're
so hot on this, file a FOIA and find out your answers. Hell,
call LHS and ask them politely; they might even tell you!

Tesha


P.S.: "Has nobody looked in the washbasins?"

[Bonobo]

146. And which COULD NOT be proven without the ability to recount.

[HughMoran]

254. Keep up the good work

You're doing a fantastic job - keep it up!

[maxanne]

194. they aren't missing

they are inside the machines, under lock and key.

I recommend reading something other than Brad, if you'd like to have facts as opposed to speculative hysteria.

Try reading Elwood, at Kos - he's right here in NH, part of the process, and persnickety about getting the facts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/105710/261

[BradBlog]

198. Really? You better let the NH SoS know that

Maxanne declared (in contradiction of actual evidence:

they aren't missing
they are inside the machines, under lock and key.

Really? Has anybody told NH Sec. of State Bill Gardner yet? Because he has no idea where those cards are, by his own admission, over several different days, to several different sources (the conversations were recorded on video tape, btw).

[riqster]

202. Kos has been anti-recount from the start

The NH SOS says the cards are missing, and he has to know it hurts his cause to admit it. Dowd says they aren't, and has to know it helps his cause to say so. I'll go with the SOS on this one.

Dowd also has a lot of anti-Election Integrity langauge in his diary.

[harmonicon]

110. it is NOT!!

sure, maybe it won't change who won the election, but there are so many miscounted and uncounted votes that have been uncovered. Having the same winner with a different count is not confirming the count. Each one of those votes is tied to a citizen. Would you have your vote go uncounted? Who is it that deserves to have their vote go uncounted or miscounted?

[Tesha]

112. Perhaps its because I know enough to fill in the oval that this doesn't worry me.

> Would you have your vote go uncounted?

Perhaps its because I know enough to fill in the oval that this
doesn't worry me.

Perhaps it's the fact that you're blattantly misrepresenting
the results so far. "so many miscounted ... votes"??? So far,
I only see clear evidence of one: A vote for "D. Hewes" that
really belonged to "D. Hughes" (the next person down on the
ballot).

The rest appears to be about a 0.4% vote gain which is
entirely expectable from ballots where the voters didn't
fill in the oval but instead did something creative. The
machines can't necessarily read those ballots but humans
can.

Tesha

[harmonicon]

113. So you've been enjoying having Bush as president then?

Blame the voters.... wonderful.

[Tesha]

122. And I said that where?

> So you've been enjoying having Bush as president then?

And I said that where?

But I will say that undervotes don't matter if they are
reasonably small in absolute numbers and uniformly
distributed among all candidates.

This, of course, *WASN'T* the case in Florida where the
infamous Election 2000 punch card ballots appeared to
have been deliberately rigged to cause massive undervoting
and mis-voting of by voters intending to vote for Al Gore
("hanging chads", "pregnant chads", Buchanan votes, etc.)
Surely you can distinguish that from the much simpler case
of a 0.4% pretty-uniformly-distributed undervote, right?

Tesha

[harmonicon]

127. no, I don't see a difference between discounting a voter's intention in one case and not another.

[Tesha]

131. So throiwing away 20% of Gore votes is the same to you as throwing away 0.4% of *ALL* votes?

> no, I don't see a difference between discounting a voter's
> intention in one case and not another.

So throiwing away 20% of Gore votes but 0% of Bush votes is
the same to you as throwing away 0.4% of *ALL* votes?

Wow!

Just wow!

No wonder you don't understand any of what's going on here.

Tesha

[harmonicon]

140. no, throwing away one vote, no matter who it was for is what I'm against

again, I ask, would you be happy to know that your vote - every time you voted - went uncounted?

[Tesha]

143. If the result of the election was *UNCHANGED*, no, I wouldn't care.

> again, I ask, would you be happy to know that your vote -
> every time you voted - went uncounted?

If the result of the election was *UNCHANGED*, no, I
wouldn't care.

And that's what's happening here in NH with the 0.4%
undertabulated vote.

Tesha

[Bonobo]

147. So your crystal ball told you everything was fine in NH?

[OnTheOtherHand]

152. check your Snark Lock key n/t

[Tesha]

155. no, *MY FEET ON THE GROUND AND DECADES OF EXPERIENCE WITH ELECTIONS*...

> So your crystal ball told you everything was fine in NH?

No, MY FEET ON THE GROUND AND DECADES OF
EXPERIENCE WITH ELECTIONS AND MY LOCAL
ELECTION OFFICIALS HERE IN NH told me everything
was fine in my state.

Where are you? And what particular experience do *YOU*
bring to our table?

Tesha

[Bonobo]

156. My experience is that you need to have transparency or be taken advantage of.

[Tesha]

159. More specifics, please. What direct contact have you had with NH elections? (NT)

[Bonobo]

163. Irrelevant to the "larger" issue. And it is precisely that which you seem NOT to see.

Making this an ad hominem against me will NOT prove a point.

[Tesha]

167. Not irrelevent one bit. You (apparently) have no actual experience or data regarding this election..

Not irrelevent one bit. You (apparently) have no actual experience
or data regarding this election other than what you've read on
blogs somewhere.

Yet we should listen to you, ehh?

Tesha

[Bonobo]

171. As suspected, you have resorted to an ad hominem attack.

[Tesha]

177. And you only have to establish *EVEN ONE CREDENTIAL* for why you deserve credednce. (NT)

[Bonobo]

186. You should prove why you are not as "credulous" as YOU appear. nt

[harmonicon]

151. Ok then, do us all a favor and NEVER VOTE AGAIN.

You obviously don't care that others vote, so why bother to vote yourself? Especially since you seem to think that just one little vote doesn't matter..... I wonder where all of those votes come from, since each person's individual vote doesn't matter... time for me to do some research into this mystery.

[OnTheOtherHand]

153. what on earth?

Did someone declare this Stubborn Incomprehension Day, and I missed it?

[harmonicon]

175. the person I was responding to....

.... stated that they wouldn't mind not having their vote counted if the results of the election were unchanged, and accepts that it's ok for the votes of others to go uncounted. I don't think that's ok. I want my vote counted. If someone doesn't respect this, I think we're all better off not having them participate in a democracy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

199. you need to think about this some more

Let me try an analogy -- and don't go telling me why the analogy is totally unfair, just give it a moment.

I think automobiles should be banned. Something like 40,000 people die in car crashes every year. Someone thought I was being unreasonable about this, so I asked: "What, you're saying that you don't mind that, that you think it's OK? What kind of monster are you? Would you kill every one of them with your bare hands?" She looked at me kind of funny, and that's when it struck me: Maybe she works for GM.

By the way, I'm not making a light joke about fatal automobile accidents. In fact, it is a sore spot right now -- and the cost of a single death in an automobile accident is far greater than the cost of a single uncounted vote.

I'm not arguing for or against optical scanners here. I'm trying to illustrate why I think disinviting Tesha from democracy is uncalled for.

[Tesha]

161. Go take some statistics classes. Learn what you're talking about. Come back later. (NT)

[harmonicon]

172. take some civics and history classes, read a book, learn to value your rights as a citizen..

and those of others in a democracy.

[Bonobo]

174. Dismissive, insulting, ad hominem arguments seem to be that poster's forte.

[Tesha]

176. No, cold hard facts are my forte but I get cranky when others argue with rumors and ignorance. (NT)

[Bonobo]

200. You are on the wrong side of the issue and no amount of name-calling will change it.

[Tesha]

212. Let's talk again when the recount is complete and the Republicans have announced their "spin".

> You are on the wrong side of the issue and no amount of name-calling will change it.

Let's talk again when the recount is complete and the
Republicans have announced their "spin" on electronic
voting.

We'll see which of us had the better political horse sense
about this whole affair.

Tesha

[harmonicon]

250. now I see the problem

You think this is about politics. This has nothing to do with politics. What it does involve is seeing that every citizen is equal in our democracy.

[TCJ70]

241. You don't think votes have been miscounted in the past?

You think that hand-counted votes have been 100% accurate throughout history, and it's only now that things are being messed up because of technology?

[harmonicon]

248. I'm sure there have been mistakes in the past

but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do all that we possibly can to insure the most accurate count possible. It is clear that the first count wasn't as accurate as possible.

[TCJ70]

266. I think that if you recounted any election throughout history...

...that it wouldn't be as accurate as possible. The most accurate anything can be is 100% and the last figure I saw showed that the recount so far was 99.65% in line with the original results. That's pretty close...close enough for me.

[riqster]

99. Bears repeating:

"Its time to END THIS FUCKING ARRANGEMENT of private companies managing public elections."

That's the problem, all right, and it has been decades in the creation.

[Seabiscuit]

97. Democracy has died when are have no confidence our votes will be counted properly.

[Apollo11]

106. Strongly agree!

Especially if you replace "are" with "we"! B-)

[Seabiscuit]

197. Sorry about the typo and lack of editing. :)

[alfredo]

116. If there was someone trying to affect the outcome, there would only be

problems with either the Dem or Republican counts. If the machines were defective, then errors would tend to be across the board.

[fascisthunter]

123. excellent point

I'm keeping my eye on this one.

[alfredo]

125. Thanks.

[fascisthunter]

160. It's Across the Board for Now

The problem is this:

snip


He says he was told by Secretary of State William Gardner that his office doesn't get involved in tracking what happens to those memory cards. Some have reportedly been returned to LHS, and may have had their memory erased already.

"When you have a private company counting 80% of the votes, and you later learn that the memory cards are unaccounted for, you have a serious question about the transparency and accountability in that process," Bonifaz said.

He notes that federal law requires all materials from elections be preserved for 22 months after the election. So if those materials have already been lost, destroyed, or over-written, there are legal questions that must be addressed.


All I have to say is this stinks and our voting process is compromised!

[alfredo]

214. We didn't have these problem back in the days of lever machines.

[riqster]

230. The election board could set them up themselves if need be

...and understand how they worked.

[alfredo]

231. It's just a glorified adding machine.

You hit this button, then verify that was your intent, add one to the total of that button and one to the total votes cast so the clerks can confirm the numbers add up.

[riqster]

233. Exactamundo!

The current paradigm leaves the election workers in the dark and out of the loop. Only the vendor knows....

[alfredo]

237. I can't see how something so simple can be so buggy.

[riqster]

238. Well, the software is not at all simple

The vendors have been adapting crap code over time, and never really re-writing it,or properly adapting it ti new hardware. Patch, patch, patch, rinse and repeat.

Garbage In, Garbage Out is the mantra: but there is always software and hardware that can take great "ingredients" and turn them to trash.

[alfredo]

240. They are based on WindowsMe. That should tell you something.

They use Access for the database. At one time the password was 1111.

[TCJ70]

244. ...

Ack! WindowsMe?!
Ack! Access?!

Sheesh...

[alfredo]

246. My suspicion is that the intent was to make a bunch of money from HAVA

and not to support democracy.

[riqster]

262. DINDINGDING! We HAVE A WINNER!

Diebold helped Bob Ney (R-Prison) write HAVA, remember.

[alfredo]

271. Another indication that we the people aren't even a small part

of the equation.

[riqster]

273. No, we are a threat

and are treated as such.

[alfredo]

279. Reminds me of this:

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
~ Frank Zappa, 1977

[riqster]

261. LOL, two good points.

Security is dogshit on those boxes (that's a technical term ;-) )

[Wilms]

166. Not really. n/t

[TCJ70]

243. That's what I was thinking...

...I looked at the SoS page and it looks like there were over and undercountings on both sides of the aisle. I have a hard time believing that hand counted elections of the past were any more accurate.

[Marie26]

119. So what's the result of the recount?

When will it be finished?

[Marie26]

130. Hillary Clinton is actually picking up more votes from the recount.

Hillsborough County

____________ Clinton, d Recount
Manchester Ward 1 1,026 1,030
Manchester Ward 2 930 935
Manchester Ward 3 551 558
Manchester Ward 4 696 702
Manchester Ward 5 683
Manchester Ward 6 875 880
Manchester Ward 7 753
Manchester Ward 8 950 951
Manchester Ward 9 899 902
Manchester Ward 10 867 877
Manchester Ward 11 622 622
Manchester Ward 12 732 737


The recount is increasing her votes in almost every voting precinct.

[riqster]

184. That's because the devices do not count votes accurately

And that is the takeaway, my friends: plus, all of the crappy, sloppy practices at the BOEs, SOS and Vendors.

Do we want to go through this in November, or fix it now?

[Marie26]

190. Oh.

I thought the takeaway of the recount was going to be that Hillary stole the election &/or the discovery of wild voting irregularities? So far, as Tesha has pointed out, the recount has increased the number of votes for all candidates across the board by .4%. That's an incredibly small margin. The NH vote was quite accurate.

[Tesha]

192. The claims of a few days ago will shift to match the emerging facts.

(Good grief I've become cynical!)

Tesha

[riqster]

193. Nope. The Election Integrity movement cares not a whit who won

...only that the winner is the correct one.

"Faith-based voting" is a rotten way to run an electoral process, and is a fairly recent phenomemon. Recounts used to be very common, back when governments actually ran elections, and there were valid paper ballots to recount.

[Tesha]

132. Everybody's picking up votes at roughly a 0.4% rate.

Here are the results so far:

o http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm

Everybody's picking up votes at roughly a 0.4% rate. Naturally,
the folks who had more votes cast for them are picking up larger
absolute numbers of votes.

I've explained elsewhere why this "vote gain" occurs but it
basically has to do with people who didn't "fill in the oval"
but made their intentions clear in some more-creative way.

Tesha

[Marie26]

136. Makes sense

Yeah, it makes sense that a human recounter would be able to count more votes than a machine could perceive. I posted HRC's numbers specifically because of all the "OMG, Hillary stole NH" conspiracy theories that seem to have driven this demand for a recount.

[Tesha]

138. I understood.

> I posted HRC's numbers specifically because of all the "OMG,
> Hillary stole NH" conspiracy theories that seem to have driven
> this demand for a recount.

I understood; thanks for confirming that!
It is ironic, though, isn't it? :evilgrin:

Tesha

[Bonobo]

150. Wow! Tesha KNEW there was no fraud! 100% certainty! Wow! That's great!

As long as Tesha KNOWS something, we should just be fine with that. No need to confirm even if there are valid reasons for being suspicious.

[Tarc]

162. What valid reasons?

That someone won a primary that was expected to go the other way? Stop the fucking presses and get that breaking news out pronto.

:eyes:

People who wanted a certain candidate to win immediately cried foul and assumed the worst of the voting machines. The far more reasonable assumption would be that the voters of my great state of NH simply didn't like that candidate as much as his supporters thought they would.

[Bonobo]

170. I will not rehash the evidence. You MUST already know about the polling oddities.

Also, disparity between what was seen in Diebold/Non Diebold areas.

It COULD be explained by citing differences between rural/city, but it would not remove the taint of suspicion that has arisen as a result of the elections of 2000, 2004, 2006 AND the fact that we KNOW there are machines that have been proven to be easily tampered with.

In my book, those are reasons enough to look into it. I'm sorry you don't agree, but that doesn't make it a petty issue of sour grapes. Not by a long shot.

Some of us don't want to get reamed up the ass in the GE again.

[Tesha]

179. The first rule of NH Primary politics: People lie to pollsters.

> I will not rehash the evidence. You MUST already know about the polling oddities.

The first rule of NH Primary politics: People lie to pollsters.

The second rule: People lie to campaign workers.

Tesha

[Tarc]

189. Far more likely that the "oddities"

are accounted for in the general, insignificant errors that all poll results see. So far in the counting today, Obama is +14 while Hillary is +40.

I'm going to laugh my ass off if this thing comes out to give Clinton a bigger lead than she had previously.

[Laurab]

211. Why?

What would be funny about it? If it gives Clinton a bigger lead, obviously something was wrong, so it's not insignificant, and certainly not funny.

[Tesha]

290. An now, several days later, 'turns out that Tesha was right wasn't she?

Yes, a few tallies have changed by a few votes, and
here in Nashua, in Ward 5, we discovered the *HUMAN*
ballot counters made a systematic mistake on Election
Night (that originated with how they handled write-in
votes for Vice President), but there's been *NO PROOF
WHATSOEVER* of any systematic fraud or intent to steal
or even distort the election.

Well, maybe you'll have better luck with the Republican
recount.

Tesha

[Marie26]

154. Very

I'm thinking of starting some wild rumor that Obama/Diebold conspired to suppress Clinton's votes. :evilgrin: Thanks for all the great info you've provided on this thread!

[Tesha]

168. You're welcome!

> Thanks for all the great info you've provided on this thread!

You're welcome!

Tesha

[riqster]

178. "Seem to have driven", but actually did not.

It is good that you allow for some doubt in that statement, because it is not the case.I know that the media has promulgated that meme, but no Election Integrity advocate that I know of has said so.(In fact, I think HRC would make a great President. Not my first choice, but I'll happily vote for her in November if she gets the nod.)
The Election Integrity movement noticed several procedural anomalies and called for a recount: not because of who won, but the need to provide precise data to replace uninformed speculation.

Read my thoughts on the topic, I am actually quite representative of the community:

Full disclosure: I am a Kucinich supporter who knows (as does he) that he will not pick up a single delegate from this process. What we ARE finding are process-related flaws in the process that need to be fixed.

[Laurab]

209. My worry had nothing to do with Hillary

and everything to do with machines with proprietary software counting the votes. I don't think Kucinich demanded this recount because he thought Hillary stole NH, either.

I cannot understand why anyone would be anti-recount, no matter who your candidate is, knowing that machines, mostly owned by republicans, with proprietary software, are counting the votes. And even if one thought it was a waste of time, I cannot understand the vehement arguing against it, now that it is going on.

I don't care who wins or loses - I do care that everyone's vote was counted correctly. I think everyone should.

[LiberalFighter]

128. Does every state have laws mandating proper procedures to count the votes?

Counting the votes include auditing the votes to make sure that the numbers match up.

If there are 301 signatures in the voter books there should be 301 voters recorded as voting.

Votes should be tabulated at the polling location and then results sent to the county election board for election day tabulation. Results should also be sent immediately to the local county party.

The books and results should then be audited within 7 days by the county election board to confirm the results provided by the polling locations on election day. Auditing to be performed with witnesses from both parties.

[riqster]

134. It varies from state to state

In locations where paper ballots are used, such auditing as you describe is possible. In counties with Touch-screens, it is not effective because one cannot count electrons.

[LiberalFighter]

139. It should still be possible to do some auditing with touch screens

The number of voters voting should be part of the cartridge print out.

If it doesn't match then it should be locked down and inspected.

[riqster]

145. Should be , but isn't.

Any errors in the count are discovered (if at all) at the county BOE when the cards are inserted and the data copied to the central tabulator. If there is an error, the workers have a truly awful choice to make: throw out the cards and disenfranchise X number of valid votes; or run with the data on the cards and risk allowing fake votes to be counted.

[LiberalFighter]

203. Which is why auditing should be done first at the polling location.

By making impressing on the election workers that this step is critical and what is required it will eliminate most of the problems. Because they will also know that their work will be checked at the county level. If needed, any voting locations that have a problem should be given more oversight to reduce problems. And if problems persist consider whether different election workers are needed.

[riqster]

210. Agreed, with this caveat:

With touchscreens, there isn't a reliable paper source to use for auditing purposes. For Optical Scan, it'll work great.


Back in the day, we did validation before, during and immediately after the election at each polling location: posted the preliminary results at each polling location: locked up the paper ballots and took them to the BOE where they were inspected, totals cross-checked and checked again: THEN put into the tabulator. Then THAT total was checked one more time.

All of this got thrown away with HAVA.

[fascisthunter]

164. Here's a VERY IMPORTANT Snip:

Snip

He says he was told by Secretary of State William Gardner that his office doesn't get involved in tracking what happens to those memory cards. Some have reportedly been returned to LHS, and may have had their memory erased already.

"When you have a private company counting 80% of the votes, and you later learn that the memory cards are unaccounted for, you have a serious question about the transparency and accountability in that process," Bonifaz said.

He notes that federal law requires all materials from elections be preserved for 22 months after the election. So if those materials have already been lost, destroyed, or over-written, there are legal questions that must be addressed.

Snip


How do we trust our election process when this type of crap occurs?

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Hold it. did they break ANY damn laws here?

Serious... chain of custody and all

[riqster]

180. Yes, records retention. nt

[Tesha]

181. Well, that all depends on what "materials" means, doesn't it?

> > He notes that federal law requires all materials from elections
> > be preserved for 22 months after the election. So if those materials
> > have already been lost, destroyed, or over-written, there are legal
> > questions that must be addressed.

> Yes, records retention.

Well, that all depends on what "materials" means, doesn't it?
Maybe somebody will cite the ruling part of the U.S. Code
and then we can go read for ourselves and see if it's
quite as clear-cut as BradBlog seems to think.

Tesha

[Tesha]

173. It would be interesting to know how much of this is actually attributable to Bill Gardner.

> He says he was told by Secretary of State William Gardner that his office
> doesn't get involved in tracking what happens to those memory cards. Some
> have reportedly been returned to LHS, and may have had their memory erased
> already.

It would be interesting to know how much of this is actually
attributable to Bill Gardner, the Secretary of State.

I could imagine that this part, "his office doesn't get involved
in tracking what happens to those memory cards", could be, and that
might actually be a reasonable and prudent thing for Gardner to
have said, seeing as how the local towns and cities probably
handle the memory cards.

But I could also imagine that this part, "Some have reportedly been
returned to LHS, and may have had their memory erased already",
is attributable entirely to Brad. It's a shame we don't have Bill
Gardner's actual quote here to examine.

Tesha

[Lint Head]

183. The fix is in. The flaws in the election process are known

and will be exploited by folks that have an agenda and want to override the will of the people. :dem:

[riqster]

185. UNLESS the people have the truth crammed down their gullets, yes. nt

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

225. True. And we can count on...

...MSM, Dem Leadership, and Left Media Gatekeepers (LMG) not to lift a finger to help expose it.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

188. The Diebold "people" would love for

McCain to become "Commander-in-Chief."

Is anyone paying attention to disparities on that side of the isle?

[riqster]

195. Yes, the Reeps are recounting too. nt

[Tesha]

196. The Republican data from Manchester (so far) are pretty slim.

But the Republican votes that have been recounted
seem, at first glance, to show larger and weirder
percentage swings than the Democratic votes that
have been recounted.

Maybe Republicans just aren't very good at coloring
within the lines (of the ovals)? Maybe they feel a
need to add comments to their ballots?

Tesha

[Dumak]

229. Or maybe the Republicans are just displaying their true fascist selves?

There are unintentional machine errors, and then there is intentional fraud.

This difference would be expected from a perspective of typical Democrat vs Republican personality profiles, if the election process provides avenues for fraud, which it certainly does.

[stillcool]

201. Does this have anything to do..

with their running out of ballots?

Public records request reveals hundreds of ballots in one area scanned as blank due to incorrect ink used on ballots, and other problems on LHS problem report forms.

[riqster]

205. Probably not.

This phenomenon is usually the result of poor training. If the pollworkers aren't given enough hands-on time, they won't know why the ink color or intensity is important.

[stillcool]

218. How often do states..

run out of ballots? I have read that ballots have bar codes. I'll see if I can find the study that mentioned that.

[riqster]

221. Some have bar codes, some do not. As to running out of ballots...

Most elections work is actually done at the county level: that's where supplies are typically ordered. The BOE watches poll data,checks around and comes up with an estimated turnout, and then adds a percentage.

It's very tricky, because if you order too many, you have wasted the taxpayers' money and will be hauled over the coals. Order too few and you look stupid.

[Divine Discontent]

207. K&R 100 for the truth! n/t

[Laurab]

213. K&R n/t

[ORDagnabbit]

219. anybody actually know whats happening today in NH?

[riqster]

220. Been a while since the last update, hasn't it?

I know they've had server issues for the SOS website-it wasn't architected to handle this much traffic.

[understandinglife]

224. Thank you, once again, for all you are doing, Brad!

"Not One Line Of Software Between A Voter And A Valid Election"

[flasoapbox]

228. Wow, what a shocker.

:sarcasm:

[Sancho]

247. Yawn...

we've been seeing this in Florida for a decade.


:boring:

[rniel]

256. great

Once more I feel like charlie brown trying to kick the football only to have it pulled away from me as I fall on my ass. It's really getting old.

Is anyone going to do anything about it. NAAAHHH!!!

[pjt7]

257. Rush Holt introduced some new vote count legislation today

..to try & convert more machines to paper, before Nov, 2008

Does anybody think this has a realistic chance of passing & becoming a reality?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/congressmen-push-for-paper-ballots/

[riqster]

264. Well, it's not mandatory, so its effect will be minimal

...Holt has good intentions, but he doesn't get technology. And he doesn't listen when people try to tell him about it.

[paparush]

260. We MUST get Private Companies Out of Public Elections

[bluesmail]

268. wonder if this is what will

be used as an 'excuse' to cancel elections??

[Ellipsis]

269. YO! Check out the numbers from Manchester ward 5

Looks a little hinky compared to the rest.

This ward not posted on the 16th... now available.

[riqster]

270. Interesting. nt

[creeksneakers2]

272. Net results after 2 days

Hillary negative 14
Obama negative 14
Edwards negative 12

Serious vote losses from first count to recount in Manchester 5

Hillary negative 64
Obama negative 39
Edwards negative 38

I don't know what happened in Manchester 5. Serious glitch there.

[indigoblue]

274. This is bizarr...

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all lost exactly 12 votes. They gained a little in many towns and lost a bunch in Manchester Ward 5, but all lost 12 votes eventually. Isn't this strange?

Richardson lost all his votes in Bedford.

:wtf:

Edit: I wrote this post based on the current NH recount page.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm

[HughMoran]

277. True - as of tonight

I don't expect it to be so interesting (i.e. 12 votes difference each between top 3) once Nashua (big city) is folded into the mix.

[stickernation]

280. We need to call in the United Nations.

Until there are blue helmets at the polling places we will not have a fair election. We are going to have to engineer an EDWARDS LANDSLIDE if we expect the White House to be in proper hands (ditto Obama and Clinton for you who support them - i'll support whoever the Dems nominate).

[riqster]

285. I'd say Kucinich, since he's the only one to put his money where his mouth is

...the other candidates rolled over and took what Big Daddy gave 'em. Wimps.