If the voting machines fixed the vote for HRC, will Obama challenge it? If not, why not?

[CTyankee]

I have been reading the posts saying that the New Hampshire voting is a redux of what happened in Ohio to John Kerry in 04. Kerry was skewered by many of us liberals for not coming forward and challenging the vote.

So, fellow liberals, shouldn't we ask the same of Obama that we asked of Kerry? If not, why not?

As an Edwards supporters I am not on either HRC's or Obama's team. I am asking this question in all seriousness. I certainly don't want a fixed election for ANYBODY! I'm as mad as all of you are about what happened to Kerry and I want to see fair elections. But shouldn't we be stopping this here and now, if we believe it to be so?

[dmallind]

1. They didn't. He won't. Because he's not a fricking moron. NT

[The Magistrate]

26. And We have A Winner, Right Out Of The Box, Folks!

Congratulations, Sir!

[ccpup]

2. if the vote totals didn't match the Exit Polls

-- like what happened in Ohio with Kerry -- then the Obama Supporters would have a case with their vote rigging assertions. But the Exit Polls per CNN match the final result impressively.

She won it fair and square.

[CTyankee]

4. So do we have a critical mass of tinfoil hatted posters here at DU?

I've been reading the posts about this vote fixing notion. Why are we getting all exercised if we can't get the candidate who "lost" interested in challenging it? That's what I don't get.

[The Magistrate]

27. The Reason Is Simple, Ma'am

For some, 'fraud' has become a word meaning not real chicanery, but 'an outcome I dislike and did not expect'. Since this meaning is not as yet very widespread, and even when understood properly may mean different things to different people, it often leads to confusion when the word 'fraud' is employed. Many people think on encountering the word that the standard definition is being used by the speaker, when in fact, it is the new and limited usage only that the speaker had in mind. Translated into standard English, the rash of claims there was 'fraud' in the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire actually read "I was surprised by the outcome of the New Hampshire primary, and do not like the outcome of the New Hampshire primary, and wish the New Hampshire primary had had a different outcome, one I would have approved of myself." The temptation to compress all this down into one syllable is obvious....

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightening and a lightening bug."

[hayu_lol]

6. If you really have questions about the machines...

address your concerns to Dennis Kucinich because the damn machines are made in Ohio. This is a subject, perhaps the only subject, on which Dennis has said nothing. Gawd knows he has enough to say about everything else.

[no name no slogan]

30. Right. And he controls the weather, too.

You don't read much, do you?

Try Googling "Dennis Kucinich Diebold" and tell me what you get, mmmkay?



KTHXBYE

[rodeodance]

3. We have real problems in this country with election counts and this is NOT one of them.

[dionysus]

5. um, is there any proof of any shennanigans?

otherwise this thread doesn't make sense...

[CTyankee]

10. Have you seen the number of posts today claiming the machines were fixed?

If it were one or two, I wouldn't have bothered posting this. But there are numerous posts in this vein. All I want to do is say "If there is voting machine fixes then the candidate who lost should be challenging it." That's what we said after 04, so I am just asking the question...

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Just Bev Harris stirring up the pot to keep

the donations flowing in.

[TwilightZone]

14. Have you considered the possibility of...

sour grapes?

A lot of people are very emotionally invested in our candidates. Obama's loss requires many of them to figure out what went wrong, and at times like last night, logic is usually the first to go out the window. "Somebody cheated" is a shortcut, an easy excuse, and a pretty easy way to avoid consideration of other possibilities.

Possibilities like McCain doing better than expected and drawing support from independents. The polls underestimating the percentage of female voters. The polls not being able to track last-minute mind-changing, which the exit polls indicated could have been as high as 40%. Overestimation of the youth vote.

Any of those things are possible, and they seem to be a lot more likely than "Hillary cheated".

[dionysus]

20. i know but absent proof of wrongdoing Obama would look like an idiot if he alleged fraud.

[goodgd_yall]

22. And he'll look like an idiot

if the same scenario occurs in another state and he wins. People will be expecting him to allege fraud there too, and if he doesn't you'll really hear it from supporters of the other candidates.

[CTyankee]

24. And that's exactly what John Kerry said and he got reamed here at DU!

I do believe that there were real problems with the voting machines in 04 but I can't prove it. I would love to see it proven, tho. But we just don't have the proof...

[goodgd_yall]

23. So just because a bunch of DUers

are posting about machines fixed, you're taking it more seriously? I don't get that.

All I can say, is next time a Diebold state chooses Obama, I'll be waiting for the same "concerned" DUers to claim fraud.

[CTyankee]

25. No, I am saying that if DUers are saying this about the machines, they should

hold Obama to the same standard they held John Kerry, that's all.
Otherwise, it just comes off as complaining...

[goodgd_yall]

32. Ah, I see.

[sandnsea]

35. And they aren't all Obama supporters

Why don't you have Edwards challenge it, since he's so concerned about election fraud. Maybe he can uncover what happened to his own election in NH in 2004 at the same time.

[CTyankee]

39. I never said they were all Obama supporters. I would say the same thing to Edwards supporters.

We have to be consistent here.

While it's really immaterial to my point, I will say that I have been very concerned about the electronic voting machines since 04, as we all should be. I really don't know why Edwards didn't pursue it further. My guess is that, smart lawyer that he is, he realized that without more proof, it would end up a fruitless effort.

Some DUers have gotten worked up over this issue, and with good reason. Maybe I am saying what folks don't want to hear: without proof or a solid way of getting proof, we're SOL...

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. I'm sure that Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel will soon speak out on this outrage

;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. WHATEVER

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

[sunonmars]

9. Stop this bullshit now

This is just not acceptable.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Puh-leaze

And what evidence do they have of problems other than the polls were wrong? Also, I believe NH has quite a few OpScan systems which are not easily rigged as TouchScreen.

(I am not a Hillary supporter, my choice is Edwards).

[lisainmilo]

17. Actually this election could be easily RIGGED

Introduction. The more things stay the same, the worse they smell

(Scoop) -- Tomorrow's New Hampshire primary represents a major turning point in the presidential primaries. We've got the rising star of Obama, the stunned Clinton camp, and the populist efforts of the fast moving Democrat, John Edwards, just off a 9% increase in the national polls. At this juncture, the Republican race is less compelling unless you happen to be John McCain or Mitt Romney.

Does Obama's highly favorable corporate media image stack up against reality? Is this the end of Hillary, or at least the beginning of the end? Can Edwards kick in the door with a strong showing and demand coverage? Will Ron Paul embarrass Giuliani by edging him out for fourth?

We'll never know for sure.

Why? It's been nearly eight years since the debacle of Florida and nearly six since the miracle Chambliss win against Cleland. Surely we have reliable, verifiable voting systems in place? It's been almost four years since the nationwide disaster of the 2004 election with irregularities still emerging.

Hasn't all this been fixed?

You'd think so. But, the answer is definitely no. Votes are still taken by voting machines produced by vendors highly sympathetic to the Republican Party. The machines are still off limits to those who want to examine how they operate and observe real vote counting. And good luck if your candidate loses and there's fraud or voting machine problems suspected.

You're out of luck. You can't hire outside experts to look at the mission critical software in the optical scanners (Sec. 1.5). You'll have a great deal of difficulty examining the paper records with voter marked choices. Don't count on seeing any recounts either. Almost all the states have high hurdles before you can request and get one of these simple verification tools (See Appendix 2).

Even with a relatively accommodating state like New Hampshire, only candidates can request a recount, but recounts are almost unheard of in presidential primaries. Citizens are not allowed to request and get recounts in the "granite state."

We may have 'paper records' with the paper forms counted by New Hampshire's optical scan voting machines, all made by Diebold. We surely don't have access to those forms unless there's a recount. The presence of 'paper records' with optical scans means nothing if citizens can't examine them directly; if citizens can't request and get a recount quickly. It's all in the hands of the candidates and parties despite the fact that the election belongs to the citizens.

Here's voting rights activist Nancy Tobi with an incredibly succinct analysis of New Hampshire's primaries and the 81% of votes counted by Diebold optical scanners.
NH: First in the Nation with Corporate Controlled Secret Vote Counting

By Nancy Tobi
Democracy for NH Article

81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates.

We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say "but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!"But they're not. They're counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount. (Is it just a funny coincidence that Diebold spokesman is named Mr. Riggall?)

We need to get the count right on election night. Right now, nobody in New Hampshire, except the programmers at LHS Associates and Diebold Election Systems, knows if we are getting it right or wrong. Our state officials and representatives know this. They learned all about it when computer security specialists Harri Hursti and Bruce Odell testified before the legislative subcommittee on e-voting in September 2007 (Hursti's testimony is shown in this video). Scientific reports about the vulnerabilities and risks with Diebold optical scanners have been available since 2003.

More from the Intelligence Daily:http://inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=4778

I actually found this article last night. I wanted to know how the votes were being tabulated because I thought it was odd that for 4 hours John Edwards percentage did not flucuate...it stayed 17% for 2/3 of the last half of the race. No 16%? No 18%? ....just a steady stream of 17%. I wondered, how is this possible that the EXACT same percentage shows up to vote for JRE in all of the precincts?
I am not saying there has been voter fraud, I am suspicious. I don't understand how Richardsons 5% and JRE 17% never changed.

Anyone?

I don't understand.

:shrug: :shrug:

[rox63]

13. There's this tiny little thing called Lack of Evidence

I'm supporting Obama, and I accept the NH results as real. I don't like them, but apparently HRC had the stronger ground organization and GOTV effort. But there are 48 more states to go. So none of them should make any assumptions at this point.

[robbedvoter]

15. Your "fighter" didn't against Bush. That "lover, won't, because it's on the up and up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

It's Republicans who own machines, steal elections. hence, GE are to be watched - and fought for. Not just "want to" fight for, but actually fight for

[TreasonousBastard]

16. NO! This is bullshit-- recounts cost a lot of money, and...

ONLY happen when there could be a significant change.

There's NO evidence of fraud, and there's NOTHING that would significantly change the delegate count.

[suston96]

18. Don't stop talking about it. It's good to question election returns....

...but here is the problem, and this is the third time I am posting this.

Go here: http://www.sos.nh.gov/voting%20machines2006.htm

All paper ballots. 100% paper trail. Ballots can be recounted by optical scanners or by hand.

Sorry, but the case for ballot fraud has very little or no merit.

[lisainmilo]

19. Ballot fraud DOES have merit

By Nancy Tobi
Democracy for NH Article

81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates.



We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say "but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!"But they're not. They're counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount. (Is it just a funny coincidence that Diebold spokesman is named Mr. Riggall?)

http://inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=4778

The entire article is about the TOTAL possibility ( and easily ) of fraud, specifically in NH. Unfortunately as the article also states in primary elections recounts are "unheard" of. So the results WILL stay as they are.

[goodgd_yall]

21. We're way past the time using Diebold should have been challenged.

I recommend we all just accept the results. In a few weeks your candidate might win in a Diebold state and then you'll pipe down about the issue.

[KennedyGuy]

28. Ummm..because its stupid?

[Auntie Bush]

29. If Obama says he's white will Hillary

peek in his pants to make him prove it? Any why not?

[CTyankee]

33. Auntie, you are funny! That was a good one.

Nice way to lighten things up. Thanks!

[BadgerLaw2010]

31. He won't, because he's smarter than the fraud Waaaambulence

[sandnsea]

34. Excuse me, but JOHN EDWARDS has his chance

How about you challenge your own candidate to contest the election to find out about the machines, since he keeps pretending he would have done it in Ohio.

[CTyankee]

36. Neither he nor I are challenging the NH results. If I was, I would expect him to

contest the voting results. If I felt there was a reason to challenge the results I would urge his campaign to do so. Not having enough facts to do so, I am not.

I do not know why he did not pursue the challenge in Ohio. I assume he did not find the factual information he needed to make the challenge, but I don't know. Do you?

[sandnsea]

37. And neither is Obama

So why are you trying to run this stupid line that Obama not challenging the election is like Kerry not challenging it.

[CTyankee]

38. Really I'm just not wanting a double standard here, that's all. And , even putting aside what

happened to Kerry, it is a serious charge and needs more investigation and action.

What I hope we don't see is later grumbling on DU that Obama didn't do enough when he had the chance. It seems hypocritical to me to complain about one candidate but not about another, on the same issue. That's all...