Democratic Ballot Recount Under Way In N.H.

[ZombieHorde]

ONCORD, N.H. -- The state on Wednesday began the process of recounting the Democratic ballots cast in last week's primary.

Shortly before 8 a.m., the ballots that had been stored in Manchester were loaded onto hand trucks to begin the journey to Concord. The recount was requested by candidate Dennis Kucinich, who paid $27,000 to the secretary of state to begin the recount.

"The big thing, I think, is to determine if the paper ballot count, the hand count, matches the machine totals," said Emmanuel Krasner, and observer for the Kucinich campaign.

Kucinich has questioned the integrity of the voting process, citing rumors of problems that led to disparities between hand-counted and machine-counted votes.

--------
More at link:
http://www.wmur.com/news/15062536/detail.html

Now we get to see if there is anything to see.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Good for Dennis.

I'm glad someone is doing it--we have to believe the vote or else our republic is a sham.

[aquart]

2. Yes. But...

If the votes were wrongly recorded, I'd be happy to lose NH for Hillary if we can get those machines banned.

BUT if the votes were correctly recorded, do we have to take it as a validation of the machines? Because that would make me sick.

[KittyWampus]

4. If recorded votes correlate exactly to paper ballots, then we'd be lucky. Further, we'd never even

KNOW if they correlate at all without counting. That's the point of counting.

[Horse with no Name]

6. Personally since the stakes are SO high

I think every vote every time should be audited without question...without additional money...without fail.
It shouldn't even be an issue...especially after the 2000 and 2004 elections that we now know were fraudulent.

[DJ13]

7. I agree with.......

"If the votes were wrongly recorded, I'd be happy to lose NH for Hillary if we can get those machines banned."


But since Im an Obama supporter I have nothing to lose.

However, I think Hillary supporters had better keep their fingers crossed that the results dont change, as I can see her "winning" based on an attempt to steal the nomination by vote rigging (even if her campaign had nothing to do with it) could be a career ender, or at least an end to her run here in 2008.

[Yael]

28. That has been my concern as well. Something about a boy and a wolf comes to mind (nt)

[Essene]

32. I'm glad somebody thinks investing in democracy is still worthwhile

[movonne]

3. What kind of voting machines do they have...if they are paperless

how would they be able to recount???

[KittyWampus]

5. all have paper ballots, but only some were counted by hand. Others were tabulated by machine

[Horse with no Name]

8. NH voting machines have paper trails

The audit will be easy. From what I understand, in areas that were hand counted, Obama won. In the areas that were machine counted, Hillary won. Edwards stayed at 17% pretty much the entire time (which is pretty hard to believe he didn't sway from that).

[FrenchieCat]

9. good to see........great that Dennis is doing this......

:thumbsup:

[PresidentObama]

10. Way to go, Dennis. Glad he's putting up the money for this.

[joeybee12]

11. this is why I can't get behind DK...his platform is probably most

atuned with my beliefs, but he's nuts.

[suston96]

12. "in areas that were hand counted, Obama won. In the areas that were machine counted, Hillary won....

Is there a link to that? I don't believe it.

[bunnies]

14. here

Statewide New Hampshire 2008 Democratic Primary Analysis
See CORRECTION Note further below (jump link: Read More)

Clinton: statewide optical scan tally
95,843
52.73%

Obama: statewide optical scan tally
85,910
47.27%

Clinton: statewide hand-count tally
16,767
46.75%

Obama: hand count
19,097
53.25%

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

[ZombieHorde]

15. Links for your pleasure.

I found this:
Kucinich said there were "serious and credible" concerns over the result. He revealed that Hillary Clinton fared far better in areas with electronic voting than she did in areas with manual voting.
at this place:
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=67694

And then I found this:
A review of statewide voting results showed that Clinton led Obama by 6 percentage points – 53 percent to 47 percent – in communities that use machines to count the votes. In towns that still rely on paper ballots, however, Obama outpaced Clinton by 8 percentage points: 54 percent to 46 percent. Overall, about 75 percent of the nearly 527,000 votes cast in the primary were counted by machines.

Given that New Hampshire relies on optical-scan equipment manufactured by Diebold Inc., the much-maligned Ohio company that was the subject of the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" in 2006, the Clinton-stole-the-election argument has taken on some credence.
at this place:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/OPINION01/609682470/-1/opinion

[suston96]

17. Thanks for the links, but I still don't believe that is significant enough to question the original

....tallies. There is no rule that there must be % uniformity in results throughout the counties and precincts that were tallied whether by machine count or by hand.

I checked the actual votes and the counties and precincts/wards showed predictable variations with Clinton and Obama exchanging wins therein.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=The+Democrats%3a+301+of+301+precincts&articleId=4be39e1c-c91e-4657-a2c4-00b7868736a8

Did Obama win ALL the hand counted precincts? I doubt it.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Kucinich is paying for it, so I see no harm in a recount. nt

[elizm]

24. What's the harm in helping the electorate feeling they can trust the outcome of an election?

If this were a Republican running against a Democrat in the state and the questions were lingering, would you not want a recount if someone was willing to pay for one? I don't happen to have much faith in the voting machines and I think it is great that Kucinch is putting them on notice that we are watching and will be watching closely in the primaries as well as the general. It can't be a bad thing.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Exactly, nt

[flashsmith]

16. A candidate puts his money where his mouth is and he's nuts?

And it's not like DK is swimming in campaign money. The Diebold equipment was certified by the GAO as unfit for counting votes. That NH still uses this equipment is close to criminal. I'm sick of faith based voting. Anytime the exit polls differ significantly from the actual results should trigger an automatic audit, and the voting machines should be capable of being audited. As was shown in Ohio 2004, the recount can be fixed as well, (people went to jail for that), so I don't know if any meaningful results will be obtained. At least DK has sent a clear signal that he is watching them. Also, it's always the little guys who notice something is amiss. In 2004, the Green party candidate noticed that 0 votes showed up in districts where they knew votes where cast. How would you feel if you voted for yourself and your vote didn't show up? The 1st tier candidates can't tell or aren't sure they've lost votes. The 2nd tier candidates are sure so I think it's entirely appropriate for DK to be doing what he is doing.

[bunnies]

13. Now we'll get to see how accurate those diebold scanners really are.

Should be very interesting.

[wintersoulja]

21. priceless

no matter what anyone says.

[suston96]

18. Recounts are mostly a good thing........

....but recounts based on suspicion or disdain for Diebold electronic machines, for instance, will enforce trustworthiness in those machines if nothing is found too wrong.

Edited: also, read this article. Very interesting about strong Clinton areas and strong Obama places.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-anderson/request-for-nh-recount-gr_b_81306.html

Neither candidate is as easily slotted "big city" or "small town" the way we can categorize Romney. However, Ed Morrissey of the Captain's Quarters blog noted last week that this fits with pre-vote trends--Clinton was leading in big cities, which tended to use voting machines, while Obama had been polling better in small towns, where hand-counts were prevalent.

Looking at those numbers for Obama and Clinton, you could argue that the Clinton camp would have just as good a case for complaint against the hand- counting process as Obama would against the machine votes (though, remember, neither of these candidates actually filed the complaint--which, considering the Obama campaign has a lot more money and a lot more to gain than Kucinich, may say something about the whole question). After all, hand-counted votes also can be miscounted and misplaced; they can be made to "disappear."

And therein lies the whole issue. The demand for a recount isn't about the New Hampshire primary--anything short of a result showing Obama winning by more than say, 5% would still put the vote within the realm of a Clinton "comeback" from Iowa. It's about the amount of distrust that voters have in the machine voting systems--machines which studies have shown to be not just hackable, but often poorly conceived and constructed.

[jasmine621]

19. And what we will all say IF the recount shows that HC received more votes

that originally counted? What will we do if she recieved less?

[ZombieHorde]

22. And what we will all say ......

It will help to validate that the machines can count, and it will show the importance of paper ballots.

What will we do if she recieved less?

Good question.

[suston96]

23. Found this doing research on NH:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080116-analysis-new-hampshire-by-the-numbers.html

[bigwillq]

25. When will we know the results?

:shrug:

[elizm]

31. Could take up to 6 weeks to complete...

..According to the tv news clip provided in the OP

[Renew Deal]

26. It would be funny if Obama won.

And then we'd be done with those machines for good.

[raebrek]

33. I don't think it would mean we are done with the machines per se.

I think it would mean an investigation into who tampered with the voting results. Proven tampering with the voting results might lead to the death of the machines or it may lead to good paper trails for all electronic voting machines in the future. Either way it would be a win.

Raebrek!!!

[Yael]

29. I am watching this with much interest. On the one hand

if they are right, it will reinforce that the machines are calibrated and fair.

On the other hand, if they are wrong, it gives state governments time to DO SOMETHING before November because the outcry will be heard from the moon.

I really don't care if HRC picks up more votes or less -- my concern is that they are counting accurately.

[ZombieHorde]

30. I really don't...

I really don't care if HRC picks up more votes or less -- my concern is that they are counting accurately.

I feel the same way, I just want every vote to be counted.