NH Primary: Where Paper Ballots Used, Different Results

[Tuesday_Morning]

Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results


By Lori Price

http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%

Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%

Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%

Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)

[MNDemNY]

1. HRC's racist vote stealing machine at work.

:sarcasm:

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. They can recount those optically scanned ballots anytime. Doubt

they'll find fraud.

[ThePhilosopher04]

3. Yeah, but will they recount?

highly doubtful.

[99th_Monkey]

4. It is striking how the hand-count mirrors perfectly the poll results

and the Diebold results are where the "wildly" divergent numbers show up.

But will M$M, who is red-faced and hand-wringing to "explain" these discrepancies going to report this?

Will Mr. "Nice" Obama demand a recount?

haa.... I hope no one's holding their breath waiting for it.

grrr. :grr:

[Quetzalro]

5. recommend!

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Give it a rest already.

Edited to add WTF!

[madrchsod]

8. why? it`s a valid point

to question results whether they are hand or machine. personally i`d trust the neighbor down the street than a machine from diebold

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. No its not vaild.

It's petty, and makes you look like a sore loser. Especially since the numbers add up if you would care to really look for a few seconds to read an comprehend.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

[EFerrari]

15. Why don't you take fifteen minutes and READ that thread. n/t

[Kurovski]

20. Since we're talking about what behaviour "looks like",

you look like a Repub crying "sore loser", trying to shut down the recount in FLA, circa 2000.

Your post is incomprehensible, given the history of elections in this country. I'll raise your "WTF" with a WTFU."

[SIMPLYB1980]

26. I didn't call anyone a republican.

You didn't mind calling me one though. How's that moral high ground your standing on. :sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

29. I said you resembled a repub trying to shutdown a recount.

Let's be specific.

[SIMPLYB1980]

34. Show me proff we need a recount.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Are you trying for a DUzy?

And the award for the greatest non-sequitur in the fewest number of words goes to...

[SIMPLYB1980]

39. And hear is your jack off award.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Recounts should require proof. That's a new one.

I'm afraid you're going to win the jack-off award too. Going for a trifecta?

[SIMPLYB1980]

41. Proof that one is needed or are you going to pay for it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. All recounts are conducted on the basis of suspicion.

Usually a suspicion that a simple miscount might have occurred which could have influenced the election.

In these days of e-voting, even a large differential between candidates does not imply a reliable outcome.

In the case of precincts which disagree with other precincts (and other things being equal) the only difference is that of electronic vote tabulators, in my view that also qualifies as a reasonable suspicion.

And yes, taxpayers should pay to conduct elections and verify that our votes are counted.

[nashville_brook]

30. they said the same thing about gore in 2000. the problem NOW is there's no faith in the system.

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. I don't trust yer neighbor down the street to count the votes atall.

Not alone. Now, him & a bunch of yer other neighborz crosschecking one another iz an all together different matter. Similarly, I do not trust any single machine to count my vote, but a process where machines from various vendors cross check one another iz also a whole nuther matter. I really get weary of the HCPB comparison to vendor specific mechanized solutions. Tiz silly to smear the machines with the unverified process in which they're deployed.

[madrchsod]

7. what was wrong with the old system of hand counts?

oh what am i thinking...you can not trust people to to count past ten. it`s so much easier with a machine.....

[sam kane]

9. Fascinating, thanks. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Of course, it may just say something about demographics

I'm the last person to simply trust electronic voting, but even so, I'd be curious to contrast the demographics of areas that use hand-counting and those that use Diebold.

Could it be a question of race or class, rural or urban?

As I said, I fully realize the immense potential for fraud that comes with trusting Diebold, but I think all angles need to be investigated. Could it simply be a causal fallacy?

[philly_bob]

13. Voting email lists are buzzing about apparent paper v. machine discrepancy

Is it possible that someone is fiddling with machine voting results WITHOUT candidates' knowledge?

This would explain insiders' long-standing skepticism about voting machine fraud: they don't know about it.

Personally, I don't believe that HRC would knowingly participate in voting machine fraud. Rove, maybe, but not Hillary.

But what if there are people -- not candidates, not parties -- who put their thumbs on the voting machine scales based on their perceived interests?

Stay tuned!

[organik]

14. Hillary is the corporate candidate.

I agree that she would not knowingly take part in election fraud, but if it happens without her knowledge?

Interesting that the candidate with the most corporate campaign contributions would see the opscan vote boost in NH - corporate elections favor corporate candidates.

[EFerrari]

16. I don't care if she's the Martian candidate or the cream cheese candidate.

What happened yesterday and how do we know? November isn't that far away, is it?

[philly_bob]

17. And Ron Paul is the most anti-corporate candidate among Repubs

and there were reports of discrepancies AGAINST him.

[tiptoe]

47. Obama to Hillary: "...you were a corporate lawyer, sitting on the Board of Wal-Mart." (x, video)

x-post: Obama to Hillary: "...you were a corporate lawyer, sitting on the Board of Wal-Mart."
Video: The Debate In 2008 (Clinton vs. Obama)

[tandot]

18. What is the difference between districts who used Diebold and those who handcounted?

Is there a difference in socioeconomic status, income, or race? Is one more rural than the other?

If those districts don't have the same demographics, you are just comparing apples to oranges.



on edit: another DUer already pointed that out further up

[Bonn1997]

19. Really frustrating!

It's my first time posting here although I've followed potential electronic vote fraud ever since 2004. I drove 3 hours to canvass in NH for Obama. Man this is frustrating! Obama's in a tough position. Do you think he could ever get the public to believe him if he showed data on vote fraud (if it turns out there was fraud in NH) to the public? I don't know if Kerry could have either in 2004. The public doesn't understand statistics and is *motivated* to believe that everything is fair because that's easier and less threatening to them. Just wondering: Do you guys try to tell your friends/family about vote fraud? I sometimes try because I figure we'll never end vote fraud if we don't inform people about it, but I just get labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist.

[Kurovski]

21. He'd have the ballots.

The votes were only counted by machine, the votes were not cast by machine. The ballots would be the proof.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Bonn1997]

22. He'd have the ballots?

Do you mean paper ballots? I didn't know there was a paper trail for the diebold machines

[Kurovski]

23. The votes are cast on paper in NH, and counted on an optical scanner,

81% of them are.

Someone correct me if I've gotten something wrong here. I'm feeling awfully goofy today.

[Bonn1997]

24. If that's the case and

Obama doesn't even ask for a manual count, then he's lost all my support. If he won't stand up to potential election fraud now, we can't have any confidence that he will in November. Maybe there's more to the story but I don't understand Obama's response to the NH results.

[Kurovski]

31. I'd wait a number of days before making a decision on that,

but you make a good point there.

[Bonn1997]

32. You're right

about waiting a few days at least. I was just frustrated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. It is in our interest, the interest of all Democrats...

... hell, all citizens, to manually audit the machine tallies of all elections.

To avoid political accusations of sour-grape-ism, Kucinich or Gravel should be the ones to request it.

In a perfect world, Hillary would be doing it.

I care to a far greater degree that transparent and verified elections are the norm than I do with which candidate won.

[Tuesday_Morning]

27. Welcome Bonn!

Yeah, I'm frustrated too. Particularly when I hear "sore loser, get over it" and other naive stuff here (of all places!) But please keep trying. The idea that these machines can't be trusted in gaining wider acceptance.

How was it canvassing in NH for Obama?

[Bonn1997]

28. Thanks!

Thanks for the message. I enjoyed canvassing, although it was a little more disorganized than I expected. They wasted about an hour figuring out where to send people. (We all were in Portsmouth just hanging out at headquarters for a while, then they sent some of us to Dover, then eventually we got to canvas.)

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

44. Well, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, any of them can call for an auditing

not just Obama, as can independent observers-- and a revote or recount would definitely be called for. There's just too much inconsistency here, with the paper ballots and the exit poll discrepancies. The problem is, just as the Diebold machines can be hacked, so can the recounts. We need to have the raw data.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

46. Looks that Kucinich may be doing just that

Story still evolving at the moment.

[New Earth]

25. I hope Brad's Blog or usual voting orgs. look into this

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

45. Brad's blog is doing a great job

The most sensible and thorough analysis I've seen, and the Red Flags for vote fraud are loud and clear there.

[Bonn1997]

33. Hand counted results slightly surprising too

Considering all the polling indicating Obama had about a 10 point lead on the day prior to the election, I'm surprised he had only a 3% lead in the hand counted ballots.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Surprising but explicable. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

35. The polls all said Obama would get mid 30s, he got 36%. The polls were spot on.

:nopity:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

43. While on the one hand I have my doubts about vote-rigging, the lack of transparency

is galling. Doubts about elections lead to violence, as they did in Kenya. There is an ominous warning here, because the same will happen to us if allow non-auditable systems to tally our elections. You can't just go disenfranchising millions of people and expect for there to be no consequences-- this is inexcusable!