ALL Diebold, ALL the Time - It's the NH Primary

[autorank]

Here's something to keep in mind, whichever primary you're looking at. Democracy has been
outsourced to electronic voting firms who provide the machines, service them, and sometimes, as in
NH, count a large portion of the votes. It's time to take democracy back and open up voting and
vote counting for all citizens to see.


Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00057.htm

ALL Diebold, ALL the Time
It's the New Hampshire Primary

Image Credit

"1st in the Nation" with Corporate Controlled,
Secret Vote Counting

By Nancy Tobi
Democracy for
New Hampshire

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

By Michael Collins
http://www.scoop.co.nz/sections/comment.html">"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

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: "1st in the nation" with corporate controlled secret vote counting
By Nancy Tobi
Democracy for NH Article Link

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.

We love our state. It takes courage and strength to admit where we are going wrong and to fix it. May our state officials and representatives find that courage and strength soon. Before we lose the other 19% of our votes.
END

This article may be reproduced in whole or part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Appendix 1:

Citizens Gone Wild: Taking Control of Our Democracy
PowerPoint File
Nancy Tobi, Democracy for New Hampshire
Election Defense Alliance

Appendix 2: Recount Triggers

Below find a summary of the electionline.org survey (p. 3) on recounts across the country.

Candidate-initiated recounts: Losing candidates: 14 states, recounts only if race is very close; 25 states, requests allowed whatever outcome, usually with a cost per ballot.
Voter-initiated recounts: In 11 states, voter requests honored for candidates or ballot initiatives. In 7 states, voter requested recounts for ballot initiatives only.
Close election: 16 states have automatic recounts when the race is within 1%.
Automatic recounts: California, Kentucky, New York and West Virginia sample a small percent of ballots to check voting machines.
No recount provisions: Hawaii and Mississippi. Depends on litigation.

Appendix 3: Voter Attitudes Toward Electronic Voting and Honest Elections
Scoop: New Zogby Poll on Electronic Voting Attitudes

Scoop: Zogby - Voters Question Outcome Of '04 Election

[AndyA]

1. Add to this media manipulation, and we don't stand a chance of electing

who we really want.

The establishment is going to do it for us. Again. :(

[autorank]

11. They'll try but remember the first outbreak of the non violent revolution - Sean of the Dread

Hannity got what the public thinks about the corporate media. Bless those fit, loud Paulies who
chased him yelling the truth at him...

It was an example to the whole country...

Their one trick pony on roids is about to tumble. Too many people fed up.

:hi:

[autorank]

24. GO BUZZ IT at BuzzFlash.Net (ID required)

BuzzFlash.Net (users forum, nominates stories)

http://buzzflash.net/story.php?id=36114

[dailykoff]

2. Gee NPR is telling me it was the compassion vote

and that all those Obama poll responders switched their vote to McCain. Nothing amiss!

[mod mom]

7. Compassion voters must be this years values voters. What a swing!

[autorank]

57. And nothing to review, check. Businesses do inventories. Citizens get squat !

Something really wrong with that.

There have been all these calls for election audits. Why? Do it right. TAKE INVENTORY!

But we can't do that because the states/counties give away the right to examine the critical software
in the voting machines (and even if they could, it would be very hard to find "fixes").

The states, in some cases, actually outlaw or otherwise block examination of the paper forms citizens
mark to be tabulated by the optical scans.

The elections belong to us but we have no say in assuring quality control and honesty.

And then there's Diebold...

[althecat]

3. Related thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2633521

[autorank]

13. Timing not bad, good topic, smart crowd, not 1/2 bad, eh?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. The crybaby fraudsters always bring this up when the vote doesn't go they way they want

[KittyWampus]

5. only a fool would be fully confident in an election result produced on machines using secret code

that's already been proven hackable.

[northzax]

46. um, optical scanners aren't touch screens

there is the original paper ballot to count. These are the same machines that mark standardized tests like the SAT. there is no 'programming' people either fill in the bubble or they don't. It's not a big secret how they are counted.

[annabanana]

65. The scanners have proprietary software too . .

The people of New Hampshire cannot call for a recount and NO ONE is allowed inside the counting machine. It isn't necessary and it sure isn't healthy for a democracy.

[bagrman]

94. It will be interesting to see the diff between caucus states and the ones that use machines.

How many states use the caucus method similar to Iowa?



Latr

[mod mom]

8. do some quick searches on LHS President John Silvestro + diebold

[autorank]

56. The post was written 18 hours before the results. It objects to SECRET VOTE COUNTING

Read the post.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. Tue Jan-08-08 11:13 PM

18 hours? :shrug:

[autorank]

107. WELLINGTON NZ TIME ON THE POST-CONVERTS TO 5:13 am TUESDAY, 1/8

Wellington, New Zealand is 18 hours AHEAD of the United States Eastern Stnadard Time. I submitted it at this time "Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:17 am" Thats EST. Looks like "Scoop" published it about 4 hours after I sent it in, or their time 11:13 pm Tuesday the 8th.

Here's how it works:

If it's 11:13 pm Tuesday Jan. 8, 11:13 pm in Wellington, NZ, what time is it on the US East coast:

Tuesday, Jan. 8, 5:13 a.m.

This was the EST time when "Scoop" published the article.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=1&day=8&year=2008&p1=264&p2=263&p3=-1&p4=-1&iv=0

[althecat]

149. I can confirm that...... n/t

[October]

158. Someone owes you an apology. Freddie? /nt

[Echo In Light]

73. A rather smug position re the broad dangers of election fraud of the past elections

[Freddie Stubbs]

171. All ballots were on paper. There is a paper trail

[Two Americas]

122. begging your pardon?

Those asking for verifiable voting and transparent elections, as autorank is, are "crybaby fraudsters?"

[Freddie Stubbs]

170. I said "The crybaby fraudsters always bring this up when the vote doesn't go they way they want"

There is a paper trail in NH. That seems pretty transparent to me.

[mckara]

139. That's It, Defend the Status Quo, Like a Good Lemming!

n/t

[kansasblue]

6. "a startling upset", " shocking victory"

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday night in a startling upset,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080108/primary-rdp/

Clinton's shocking victory' Associated Press

[kansasblue]

9. pre-primary polls: "would lose big, perhaps by double digits"

"Pre-primary polls had found that Clinton would lose big, perhaps by double digits" McClatchy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/24477.html

[kansasblue]

14. "Defying expectations of a humiliating double-digit rout"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/08/2008-01-08_hillary_clinton_declared_winner_in_nh.html

[kansasblue]

18. Fox News polls Jan 7 and throughout election day:

The poll consisted of 800 telephone interviews with Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, conducted the evening of January 7 and throughout election-day on January 8.



Over half of Democratic primary voters (52 percent) would be very satisfied if Obama wins the Democratic party’s presidential nomination.

The same is true of 41 percent if Clinton wins the nomination,

and 32 percent if John Edwards wins the nomination.

[kansasblue]

22. "there were few --if any - political strategists who believed Clinton had any real chance at victoy"

Washington Post

[kansasblue]

23. "Clinton's own campaign seemed resigned to a loss as recently as early this evening "

Washington Post

[kansasblue]

26. "stunning turnabout. Given how dire her situation had appeared just hours earlier"

New York Times

[Kurovski]

28. Thanks for the additions, kansasblue.

Stunning indeed.

[kansasblue]

31. I see www.bradblog.com is working the numbers now.

it don't look good.

thanks for thanks.

fyi... I haven't selected a candidate. I just hate to see the system monkeyed with.

I felt like they used (abused) the system to derail Dean in 2004. Don't know but feel we should be watchful.

Just posting facts.

[Kurovski]

34. It's the never knowing with any certainty what actually happened

that is the problem.

Any discrepancies are magnified and become especially suspicious.

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. Frankly, I believe unintentional discrepancies would absolutely pale

into insignificance, so the ingredient of uncertainty is not in any way problematic, in my view.

However, that, of course, in no wise diminishes the absolutely pivotal requirement of transparency. Without total transparency, it becomes quite literally (and I know that term tends to be used figuratively) a charade. 'Cep we don't have to guess what uproarous entertainment the poor thespians who enter the polling booths are unwittingly staging, for the continuing delight of their Neocon masters.

Staying away from the elections, on the other hand would be even worse, wouldn't it? There is hope that one day they will all be brought to book and the system rectified. But for the present, it's Hobson's choice.

[Kurovski]

118. Yes, everyone should vote, especialy under uncertain corcumstances,

if only so as to underscore any greater volume of theft.

No vote is ever truly wasted. Only fools and cads and Repubs like to say "Why even bother?"

[Kurovski]

134. Please excuse my misspelling of "especially " and "circumstances."

:kick: Yeesh.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Just like Bush was on the night of the 04 election until Jeb told

him he would check it out...Miraculously DimSon down by 3 wins by 6 AND the people who decided
who they would vote for on election day bent toward Kerry.

[dailykoff]

44. and don't forget his 2000 primary upset -- in NH.

hmm..

[autorank]

30. Superb value added. Thanks for finding and sharing this. Very efficient.

Facts and more facts.

[Major Hogwash]

10. Or, how a 13 point lead in the polls can be erased in 30 seconds!

If they can do it to Obama in the primary, they can do it to anyone in the General.

There is no secure voting in Amerika anymore.

There is no other way to explain how a 13 point lead vanishes in less than 24 hours.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THIS PRIMARY WAS FIXED??

Please be clear on that.

[progressivebydesign]

16. they are, they're just full of sour grapes tonight. and ignoring the EXIT Polls..

which all favored Hillary today. If the exit polls are trending heavily toward a candidate and they lose, (like Gore) then you worry. These folks are disgruntled Obama employees.. oops I mean supporters.. who are trying to taint her victory. They conveniently forget, as they blanket DU with their numerous threads about this, that the undecided voters were around 17% until today. They're just further embarrassing themselves and further alienating people on DU from their candidate.

[Two Americas]

124. don't be silly

I support Edwards. None of this changes anything for him. I was glad to see Clinton win if only to slow the Obama juggernaut. If anything, that helped Edwards to have Senator Clinton win.

[autorank]

183. I wrote the article. I have not picked a candidate. The interest in voting rights here is huge.

What are you talking about? This was not a partisan post, it was written and submitted hours before the polls even opened in NH. If you read the first two paragraphs, there is nothing hostile about any candidate, just questions.

What's wrong with transparent, open voting processes, elections open to all citizens, rather than practices that discourage minority and poor voters. Open elections and the dangers of privacy and outsourcing are the themes of this article. "We'll never know." That's the basis for advocating open elections. We must be able to know. When the vote counting is done in secret and out of view of the candidates, there are problems.

There's no paper trail here except in the 19% of precincts where paper ballots are counted by hand. Optical scan forms are taken off by the e-voting company and the chain of custody is lost entirely. For all we know they could add some, take some away and then county whatever they want on the optical scanners. That's why evidence, in this case evidence of preference, has "chain of custody" as a prerequisite.

They can announce any totals they want for the optical scanned forms. We'll never know.

They can announce any totals they want for the recount. We'll never know.

Why? Because we don't know what happened to the ballots when they were outsourced to the private vendors.

That's not OK with me and shouldn't be for anyone who values democracy.

[dailykoff]

17. Let's just say everything's on the table.

Halliburton must be very pleased.

[autorank]

33. I'm suggesting that SECRET VOTE COUNTING, unavailable to the public is WRONG

The OP was published about 18 hours ago. If I had the powers of pre-cognition to predict who
would take it and then charge foul, I wouldn't be writing articles on this subject, I'd be at
the track.

Secret vote counting is a function of privatizing elections. We, the citizens, own that franchise.
It can't be sold but it is, all over the place.

State restrictions on who has access to the ballots and who can do a recount, on their own, for
whatever reasons is just plain wrong.

In both Florida and Virginia, there are laws against anybody examining the ballots from an election.
These were post 2000 Florida and designed to make things tidy. All it does is generate serious
questions.

When elections are transparent, then everybody benefits, there are few if any questions, and the
system gains integrity.

When a Massachusetts distributor of a national company with strong Republican ties has the contract
for 81% of the votes for their machines

and when another Massachusetts company has the contract for vote tabulation

AND when this is all done in secret,

there are objections to the system period, regardless of who is running and who wins. It doesn't
matter if it's a local, state, or national electoin.

[Leopolds Ghost]

169. Harper, why are you guys so concerned about what DUers think?

If the primary was fixed, it certainly wasn't done by Hillary
or any candidate.

Why the sudden hostility to allegations of fraud when a Dem is involved?

It makes us look bad.

I'd say the same thing if the shoe were on Obama's foot.

In any case, as Skinner pointed out, easier explanations
exist, chiefly (as Larry Sabato and a NH columnist herself
defended the practice) polled women lied because they didn't
want to say they voted for a woman over a black man, it's
an embarrasing subject regardless of rationale.

[OzarkDem]

15. What's Obama's record on fighting election fraud?

Just wondering.

[LiberalMandrake]

25. How can Hillary Clinton win with 5 pct of the votes? Answer: because Obama says it's legit

The magic: voting machines + the candidate who is supposed to lose.

[mod mom]

39. Did he stand with Boxer and the CBC in January 2005?

[Imagevision]

115. paperless voting machines Obama won't get the chance tostand up for ANY change

[Breeze54]

19. NH has paper ballots

WTF are you talking about? :crazy:

[dailykoff]

20. 81% of votes counted by Diebold optical scanners.

Read the OP.

[kansasblue]

21. paper forms counted by New Hampshire's optical scan voting machines, all made by Diebold.

paper forms counted by New Hampshire's optical scan voting machines, all made by Diebold.

[Kurovski]

32. All you had to fucking do was read the goddam article, ol' rolly-eyes.

Godammit.

[truedelphi]

104. I somewhat agree but think you are being too harsh with Breeze

The media was constantly saying "paper ballots"

And even people in New HAmpshire were saying to one another "paper ballots"

This would leave one with the impression that it was paper ballots.

And so Breeze and others would not be inclined to read the whole article because they have it on good authority that there were paper ballots.

I know this from experience. In Marin County, CA, often voting activists there have a hard time getting people to realize that paper ballots are counted on a Diebold optical scanner.

And that the optical scanner is the pertinent part.

People don't think that many levels deep.

[Kurovski]

119. Yes, I was too harsh.

But Breeze started it! She called autorank crazy! We're not supposed to say that aloud. :evilgrin:

[autorank]

36. You're referring to paper forms run through optical scans.

The official ballot of record is the result, tabulated by electronic/computerized optical scan
readers.

Those paper forms are not available for review, period, unless the losing candidate requests it.

None of the candidates live in the state of NH.

Therefore, you've got a situation where non residents have more voting rights than residents.

This is absurd and a good explanation why 40% to 50% of eligible voters stay home. They see the
process and the results as total b.s.

[Breeze54]

59. I watched on TV as they dropped the pink & blue ballots in a box

Not an optical scanner

[riqster]

89. 18% of the state does that. 82% optical scans nt

[autorank]

109. As it should be...NH 81% optical scanner tally; 19% paper ballots.

There's been some confusion by the statement that optical scanners use "paper ballots."

The ballot count produced by the optical scanners is the official vote count. The paper forms are
not.

Real paper ballots are the official record of an election. Optical scan forms are an intermediate
step used by the optical scanner to create the official record.

BTW, why assume what you saw on on television segment was a universal representation of the voting
systems in NH?

[seemslikeadream]

27. But Then It Was Too Late

IMPEACH CHENEY




They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

[autorank]

38. Wow! Highly recommended!!!!!!!!!!

[bobthedrummer]

35. k&r

[robinlynne]

37. oh NO. Diebold in NH.... Diebold in Los Angeles. ... Ohio.....Florida?......

Damn the traitors to democracy.

[autorank]

41. "Diebold or live free"

[robinlynne]

92. I was on the phone with Brazil last night after the polls closed. news headlines

there were that Obama won by a landslide of 17 points. On my tv it said Hillary won. We were both just sort of in shock about what to say to each other. How the hell do you reconcile that?

[truedelphi]

102. That is quite the thing to tell us Robin Lynne

Do you remember where in the movie "JFK" the Donald SUtherland (D.S.) character says it is really important to look at the situation with the pre-event news?

In the movie, D.S. says he was travelling through Australia on the 22nd of Novemebr - but that is really the day before our November 22nd due to the international date, time meridian.

The newspapers there already had announced the Kennedy shooting and that Oswald had done it.

JFK and Enemy of the State are both primers for realizing the dirty tricks that are out there, and being incessantly played on our populace.

Also see my other response, # 98.

[LiberalMandrake]

113. The problem is not Diebold. It is the reduction of verifiable paper ballots to two digits.

Obama's role is to confirm that media polls are legit and voting machines count Clinton's votes correctly, no matter what...
http://end-times-computers.blogspot.com/2007/05/ronpaul2008com-barackobamacom.html

[Me.]

42. A Jack's A$$ For You

:kick:

[Nederland]

43. What are you suggesting?

That Democrats rigged their own primary?

Please...

[kansasblue]

47. The election equipment is neither Dem or Republican.

The votes are counted together.

[Wednesdays]

51. Are Democrats the only ones with much at stake in this primary?

Think it over...take your time...

[Nederland]

72. Don't need time

The notion that Republicans prefer Hillary is ridiculous.

[JAbuchan08]

81. Just as ridiculous as election fraud

Some Republicans have even stated that they prefer Hillary - Karl Rove and Bill Kristol to name a couple. I'm not saying that anyone in the Hillary camp or outside of it rigged the election, but it's not ridiculous. You imply that it is outside the realm of possibility - it might be outside the realm of probability (and I'm not even sure about that), but it's a distinct possibility.

[Nederland]

93. Of course its possible...

It's also possible that Obama rigged this election and should have actually gotten 14% of the vote.

Lot's of things are possible.

The question is, are they probable. The answer to that is no. Occam's razor says that in this case Obama did about the same as predicted, Edwards did about the same as predicted, and Hillary did slightly better. Given the number of undecideds, that is a perfectly valid explanation. Jumping to conclusions about conspiracies when no evidence exists is just plain stupid.

[JAbuchan08]

103. Trust, but verify. Right?

[Nederland]

112. Here is what you do

Pick a precinct and manually count the ballots that were run through the Diebold scanner. If the hand count matches the scanner count, shut the fuck up.

[JAbuchan08]

129. Okay, sure. I'll just pick a precinct and flash my ID badge and they'll let me right through

There are legitimate suspicions revolving around elections of all types, and YOU should be a bigger person than to allow my qualified skepticism to drive you off the rails. I never accused anyone of fraud.
We have elections that are counted on unreliable and easily hackable machines. Any suggestion of a recount is met with outright hostility (by Dems?!), but even recounts are subject to fraud as the recent Ohio case demonstrates.
So I will grant you that fraud is an improbability (but neither an implausibility or an impossibility), but the attitude among some here that it is something not worth considering is stubborn and stupid. I for one am sick of optimistic Democrats like you. Optimism is what tells senators that they can cut deals with Bush and still win the presidency. Optimism is what allows you to make good friends with Joe Leiberman and John McCain. Optimism is buying into contrarian conventional wisdoms as paradoxical and mindbendingly stupid as that is.

How bout I make you a deal. If they do a hand recount and I'm wrong I'll shut the fuck up. Until then you can shut the fuck up.

[Nederland]

162. Deal

And I agree that it is a problem that the current system doesn't allow this to happen.

[sss1977]

130. I agree with your idea

Too bad it's impossible to actually do, which is exactly the fucking problem.

[althecat]

150. Ok and how do we pick the precinct... people are in jail in Ohio because they succeeded....

... in using this technique (fraudulently) to shut down a recount. This very technique is in law there. It demonstrably failed to protect against fraud when a recount was legally forced. There is some irony in that.

[Vilis Veritas]

160. It is not about the notion that Republicans prefer Hillary...

Whether it is Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney or Paul does not matter, the Corpora-Fascist elite WILL deal with it. The rigging, whether it happened or not is really moot...the fact that people think there could be rigging is all that is necessary to keep the necessary amount of imbalance in the system and maintain the illusion of free will.

It is not necessary to the farmer that the cow has plenty of grass and open spaces, it is only necessary to blind the cow.

[autorank]

55. The suggestion is vey clear. Secret vote taking and counting is WRONG!

This was published well in advance of the primary results. The objection to this state's policies
and those of just about every other state in which a primary occurs is simple: the election belongs
to the citizens, yet the citizens have few if any rights of review. The candidates have limited
rights in NH with the losers allowed to ask for a recount but that almost never happens. Thus
out of state candidates have more rights than citizens of this primary state. It's absurd.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Diebold machine the same as in Hacking Democracy

Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. See the previous report, as I recommend, which also includes a video of that hack, and footage of the guy who runs LHS Associates

bradblog.com

[sss1977]

132. Anyone who hasn't seen Hacking Democracy

doesn't have a leg to stand on if they disagree with the argument in this thread. Talk about being 100% pertinent to last night's primary. It's not about who did it or why, but it certainly looks like something was done. Why else would the 18% counted by hand match the polls, and the 82% counted by Diebold be so shockingly far off expected results?

[pnorman]

185. Here it is at Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4463776866669054201

I'm in the process of downloading it onto my HD.

pnorman

[Kurovski]

48. Kick. (nt)

[msedano]

49. Tobi & Collins, top notch work.

so what's a voter to do, trust that Diebold knows best so just go along for the ride, or buy Diebold stock and go along for the ride. What's that saying about the rider and the ridee? On second thought, what we have here is the ongoing story of the world's most perfect crime.

recommended.

[autorank]

53. Nice!

The rodeo? "This isn't my first trip to the rodeo?" Is that it? I can handle the answer. I didn't just fall off of the turnip truck!

[msedano]

50. Tobi & Collins, top notch work.

so what's a voter to do, trust that Diebold knows best so just go along for the ride, or buy Diebold stock and go along for the ride. What's that saying about the rider and the ridee? On second thought, what we have here is the ongoing story of the world's most perfect crime.

recommended.

[autorank]

54. Well worth saying twice! THANKS!

[autorank]

52. My exchange over at TPM Cafe

kozmik's Blog
NH suprising? Not at all.
By kozmik | bio
http://tinyurl.com/2yc2f3
2 of 2 people recommend this blog entry.

With only 20% of precincts currently reporting, and Hillary holding a small lead, a lot of people are acting surprised Obama isn't yet winning in a blowout. Which makes no sense to me, and is a classic example of expectations being manipulated by the MSM to completely distort reality. And I was saying that days ago, when ARG and Zogby were putting out absurdly high numbers for Obama.

People need to remember some things:

1) Obama was double digits behind Hillary in NH just weeks ago.

2) The Iowa "bounce" isn't a physical law, it's something that may or not happen depending on a lot of things, not least of which is perceptions.

3) Distorted polls can cut both ways. they can boost candidates, but they can also create unrealistic expectations. Obama has alwasy said he's got a long hard battle, and no state is inevitable.

4) Edwards is splitting the "change" vote. that's huge. If his supporters went overwhelmingly to Obama, Obama would win in a blowout. But that's not happening yet.

5) ARG and Zogby called Iowa for Hillary by a landslide. And flipped to call Obama for a landslide. But they've generally been sloppy. More reliable polls had Obama picking up a lot of momentum after Iowa, but still a close race.


On January 9, 2008 - 1:27am Michael Collins said:

Diebold, the very Republican vendor, takes and counts the ballots of 81% of NH voters. A Diebold distributor and another firm out of Massachusetts handle sales, servicing, programming, and vote tabulation. NO ONE is allowed to view vote counting or examine the voting machines at a level necessary to detect real election fraud; the latter by agreement between the purchasers of the voting machines, state/county, and Diebold.

Your interpretation is interesting and perhaps true.

We'll never know. Why?

Because elected and appointed officials have such contempt for the citizens they've created this absurd system that allows private vendors to "secret" voting information from the people who endure the results of that voting and in whose name the voting is conducted. How pathetic.

But it fits, doesn't it. We have a war based on lies which has cost the lives of 1.2 million Iraqi civilians and created 5.0 million (five million) orphans... and not one major candidate find those outrages worthy of mention. We have a planet headed down a path that will cost hundreds of millions of lives ...and not one major candidate finds that outrage worthy of mention.

Shame on them but not us. We deserve much better.

[Major Hogwash]

58. Thank you for all your work autorank. Win, lose, or draw, Obama deserved a fair chance.

If I were Obama, I would immediately contest the election results.

The Brad blog has stated that Zogby's poll on Monday predicted a 42-29 blowout.
There is something sadly wrong when the votes we cast aren't counted in this country.

We need an immediate recount - and a banning of electronic vote scanning machines!!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[karlrschneider]

62. Horseshit. There is no point diddling with a fucking primary.

:eyes:

[orleans]

64. maybe this is the perfect time to show this country what is going on

and that our votes are counted accurately.

maybe the primary is absolutely the place for it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. This is the first time I've heard the primary described as irrelevant. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

116. Other than to have people discount such anomalies in the future?

[autorank]

99. Radical notion - citizen controled and operated elections.

From the start through the 19th century, many elections were tallied in public.

When there are no questions on the results, everyone benefits.

I simply can't understand why the "rulers" continue to make this process so difficult,
so "technical" (meaning only dueling "experts" can evaluate the results), and so
secret. Of all public processes, voting and vote counting should be the most open.

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

61. k&r

[AzDar]

63. Kick ...

:kick:

[earth mom]

66. We shouldn't be surprised since most of know that the fascists control us now.

However, I too, allowed myself the hope. I realize now that I was being naive. No wonder Gore didn't run. He knew what they are capable of. :argh:

[Indi Guy]

67. autorank - Thank you for your hard work!

This outcome smells like leftover Bush v Gore & Bush v Kerry.

I've known for some time the the fix was in on Hillary; but I didn't think the fixers would be as bold as to skew the results this dramatically -- this early in the race.

Exit & enterance polls used to be leading indicators of voting trends; but The Bush "elections" threw reality on it's head. Now the same thing happened in New Hampshire.

Who has the larget $$$ connections with global business? -- Hillary

Who could pull off election fraud in NH? -- Hillaries backers.

Hillary herself is probably totally unaware, but these China led "multinational" cut-throats know precisely what their doing. They've chosen her because she's already played ball with them & they believe they can control her.

If she resists, I'm sure her VP will fall in line.


In hindsight, they threw Obama (and his supporters) a bone in Iowa.

[Indi Guy]

69. K & R

[autorank]

121. Thanks for your kind words! Here's how simple it is to have great elections

Clean elections where people are encouraged to vote are very easy to accomplish. Hence, the resistance raises questions. If John Q could go in and count the ballots himself or if the League of Women Voters could, routinely or by election, do the same, few, if any would have questions.

That means these essentials:

1) we'd have a discrete ballot (which we don't with e-voting) and
2) a chain of custody for the ballots to make sure they were the ballots voted;
3) open registration with no exclusionary efforts tolerated (caging, intimidation, etc.)
4) and open access to all ballots for review by citizens alone or in groups.

Voila...clean elections, public participation and examination allowed, and no questions that can't be answered with a little effort.

[Indi Guy]

167. Isn't this the kind of DEMOCRACY that Cheney/Bush claim is ON THE MARCH!!!???

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Did I neglect to say :puke: ???

[autorank]

172. It's "the long march"...stomping on ourlivlihoods, values, health, and freedoms...

That's what they're about. Consolidating power because they've created a situation they can use to grab more power, more money...in fact it's all about The Money Party;)

[Indi Guy]

173. The Hypocrisy is as rank as it is rife...

...in both parties.

There is only a one party system in America anymore -- led by the "Have's," (supported by the World Bank)...

[flashl]

68. K&R n/t

[MadHound]

70. Well now we know who corporate America wants as their nominee

No surprise, they've wanted Hillary all along, but I think that this primary, with its rigged voting machines, simply proves it.

[Geek_Girl]

80. Welcome to Nightmare 2008

Hillary wins the primary via Diebold
Ghoulani wins via Diebold and the flat GOP field.

So it well be Hillary vs Ghouliani

Hillary has a 5%-10% lead in the polls but Ghoulani Diebolds the election and now where in hell for another 8 years.

Wasn't sure how they were going to steal this one but now I know.

[Perry Logan]

71. The big hole in this argument is the belief that the Right wants Hillary--when the opposite is true.

Really, wingers are phobic about Hillary. They would never hack Hillary in.

[hayu_lol]

74. Well, Diebold is made in Ohio...

That is Dennis territory I believe. Why has our wandering Dennis not done something concrete about this company?

Maybe he figures he could be helped by them?

[riqster]

90. Not his district nt

[autorank]

125. The OP didn't contain an argument about HRC. It condemned "secret" voting/elections

It argued against outsourcing elections; against giving those counting functions to third rate tech companies that give tons to Republicans; it affirmed our rights as citizens to open elections, available information - readily available - and my goal is to have no questions about any election because we have real ballots that had a chain of custody that's acceptable so that when ANYONE reviewed the ballots, the results would speak for themselves.

There is no hole in that argument.

Why would anybody oppose that? Why not implement it? It's easy?

The absence of action is telling.

[lateo]

75. Diebold favors Hillary...surprised?

http://presscue.com/node/38034

Diebold favors Hillary, hand count for Obama

Check the website for more details.

Also the polling was screwed up...where have we seen that before?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

[Junkdrawer]

76. Obama won the hand-counted votes...

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

[SOS]

97. Very interesting

Thanks for that link.

Obama won 38% to Clinton's 34% on hand counted ballots.

on edit:

Note also that all candidates did better on hand counted ballots. Only Clinton picked up 4.7% on machine count.

Truly weird stuff there.

[AtomicKitten]

78. You know what the meaning of insanity is?

Using the same voting machines and expecting a different result.

It is beyond my comprehension why Democrats didn't change the dynamics of how we execute elections.

Thanks for the analysis, Mike. I'm going back to bed and pulling the covers over my head. :(

on edit: K&R

[foo_bar]

79. insanity is believing fairy tales into adulthood

In the first two parts of this ongoing series on The Money Party, we discussed the fact that there is only one political party in the United States, The Money Party. It has two wings, Republican and Democratic. That party represents excessive concentrations of wealth (3) in the hands of corporations, other organizations, and individuals. They put up the money and get what they pay for every time.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5057 (the pseudonymous "Michael Collins", borrowing from David Sirota)

If there's only one party in this country, what's the point of stealing an election? Why bother taking sides in a primary if it's all an illusion? The only consistency to be found in these McLean area emanations is the suggestion that voting is pointless and we should stay home, even if the stated reasons are logically incoherent (for instance, the "Money Party" stealing elections from itself just to distract everyone from the real shell game; Diebold stealing elections in Iowa caucuses; Kerry stealing the 2004 primary then becoming the blindsided victim of the 2004 general; pollsters being liars who we should trust, ad infinitum et nauseam).

[tomp]

the point is perception.

america has to BELIEVE there are two parties or the one party system doesn't work.

[AtomicKitten]

101. the charade appears to be working

:scared:

[Geek_Girl]

82. Welcome to Nightmare 2008!

Hillary wins the primary via Diebold
Ghoulani wins via Diebold and the flat GOP field.

So it well be Hillary vs Ghouliani

Hillary has a 5%-10% lead in the polls but Ghoulani Diebolds the election and now where in hell for another 8 years.

Wasn't sure how they were going to steal this one but now I know.

[Marie26]

83. Cause a woman couldn't win fairly, right?

You know why I think Clinton won NH? Women. Women saw her in the debates, saw what she's done for women's & children's rights, knew the importance of having the first female president, and they turned out in droves for Clinton. And the rampant sexism in the media & on boards like this is one reason why women decided for Clinton.

[autorank]

126. I neigher supported or criticized any candidate in the article. It's about VOTING RIGHTS

It was published 18 hours before the date on the article at "Scoop" because they're in NZ which is
usually the next day the publish there. There was no criticism of the results since it was just after

midnight when I sent it it.

The issue SECRET VOTE COUNTING plus OUTSOURCING ELECTIONS ruins faith in the results.

It's an easy fix.

I oppose the type of sexism and hat directed at Hillary. I find it disgusting totally unacceptable.
There is NOTHING in my article that supports any of that. Quite the contrary, I argue ufor a system
where women, people of any color, etc. can compete and be assured that the voting was open and fairly
counted.

[LynneSin]

84. Funny that the exit polls match the results

Get over it

[autorank]

86. The article was written well in advance of the vote count. It's about secrecy not a candidate

When you have secret vote counting and the process denies access to the people in impacts,
you have a situation where people question results.

I'd be surprised if you'd favor letting right wing, Diebold, and Dominionist, ESS, control over 75% of vote taking and counting. This should be the cleanest most open process we have.

Have not had a chance to look at the exits. Who did them?

[sss1977]

135. You don't know much about exit polls do you?

The one you see are weighted. Let's look at the raw unweighted exit polls.

[autorank]

166. If they release the unweighted data...

...but they should. If they don't then that would be a big question mark.

Of course, the media owns the data, the media consortium. Nice deal.

Create an event which occurs as a result of an entity you own and then claim
you're objective reporters. Only in the MSM.

[BigDDem]

85. OMG, this is priceless!!!

I expected lots of whining, gnashing of teeth and finger pointing but the Diebold card?? I love it! Thanks for making a great day even better. :rofl:

[riqster]

91. So you trust the current voting process?

[truedelphi]

105. Apparently this person was willing to overlook

who controls the casino, and how the fix can easily be worked in, and what not - after all, this one time his candidate won.


If the game turns out badly in November, maybe they'll get it.

But of course, by then it will be too late.

[Joe Chi Minh]

87. As I wrote on another thread, Michael, think how much the Republicans have to lose

if a Democrat who is not their lapdog is elected President. Many of the highest ranking politicians and powerful enablers face criminal prosecution and imprisonment - quite apart from any financial considerations. They've got away with it the last twice... It's easier for them to believe they are on a roll than for them to suddenly find an honest election an acceptable proposition.

[autorank]

128. They will lose their shirts, at the very least.

They have taken this country and driven it so far down, it will astonish people when the full extent
of their behavior comes forward. It's a disgrace.

The one result I find stunning is McCain winning. He's an avid war proponent. Maybe he got the 26%
who favor the war;)

Big mess, getting bigger!

:hi: Regards!!!

[sss1977]

137. It's possible Romney was supposed to win

If you look at the Republican side of things, Romney got an even larger boost than Hillary in the Diebold vote. It just wasn't big enough, similar to what we saw happen in 2006. It's possible too many people voted for McCain.

[autorank]

165. The Republicans are foiled by democracy;)

They deserve it for all they've started. I suppose the 100 years war of McCain in Iraq is better than the World War III of Huckabee resulting in the end of the world for all but a few. The politics of madness.

[helderheid]

95. I can't believe we haven't gotten rid of these GODDAMNED machines yet. Good work.

[bagrman]

96. Happiness would be the smell of burning voting machines in the morning.

[autorank]

127. You know that I feel guilty when I see you use

swear words (remember;).

You're so right. What a sad excuse we have for voting and voting rights... year in and year out.

Totally unacceptable.

:hi: You're a true :patriot:

[truedelphi]

98. And was anyone else MAD as HELL that the election was called

With only 68% of the votes being in?

When will candidates learn to NOT concede until every vote is at least IN!

[robbedvoter]

100. It's Premier Elections now. And I doubt it affect primaries. But watch for it in GE

[bobthedrummer]

108. k

[Joe Chi Minh]

110. Here's the nub of a post I sent to Guardian Talk, Michael, which contains

what I belive to eb a significnat truth, namely that these Democratic Primaries, not the 2008 presidential election, are the ones the Republican are out to win. Hillary would serve their purposes admirably.

"What most people don't seem to understand about these Primaries, imo, is that they are the crucial ones for the Republicans. The Republicans don't have a hope in hell of winning the presidential elections without a fraud so massive, it would be a bad bet, when they could get their own corporatist way with a compliant Hillary, and return to a more "softly softly, we, Neocon-Republicans are really nice people you know" kind of modus vivendi with the American people...

Of course, there's no guarantee that they're not already so addicted to fraud in favour of the formal Republican party with impunity (the gleeful fun of it all), they might not be able to resist doing it a third time on the trot. But I think the counsels of the more world-wise among them would probably prevail; that that's the plan at the moment.

If Hillary wins the Primaries, pro Republcian fraud would be senseless. They'll be very happy with a low serpentine profile. The Dems will even be able to be painted by the corporatist media as having caused the economic depression and all the other ills cause by the current administration. Then four years later, they'll be back with their customary swagger.

And as for our MSM not colluding with their corporatist paymasters, there was even a video clip of a BBC (very "leftie", you know) newscaster reporting the fall of a secondary tower to the twin WTC towers on 9/11, which phenomenon viewers could see just beginning to collapse in real time behind her, some seconds AFTER they heard her report it!

[puebloknot]

111. K&R A little despair and depression with my morning coffee!

"Secret vote counting": How do we wake up from this Soviet bloc dream?

Not one word any candidate utters has any meaning if we don't have clean elections. Millions of dollars are being spent on a charade, while the Diebold, et al. termites continue to gnaw away at the very structure of the People's house.

And a voice crying in the wilderness, like yours, Michael Collins, is painted as one telling childish fairy tales!

Keep telling your tales!

[autorank]

180. Millions

It's really unbelievable how much this substandard technology costs. Billions spent on this equipment. Money goes out and then the recipients, counties/states, get to bank it for future expenses, payments. What a deal that is. It's gone on way too long. But as long as it's in
secret a) we'll never be able to tell what's up and b) any one with questions can be dismissed as a
conspiracy theorist. But the act is stale, the public much more aware, and the general faith in "revealed truth" from the government has diminished. We'll prevail.

[Imagevision]

114. Sad to say we'll be voting in an election that is not verifiable, how bad is that?!?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

117. It's not about Hillary winning.

The election results are in the hands of corporate entities folks. We are ridiculed for questioning the validity of the results. Where has this tactic been used before?

Keep shoveling shit to us and passing it off as caviar, and being the good consumers we are, we ask for another cracker.

Thank you Mike for continuing to push for transparency in our voting system.

[Mnemosyne]

120. And who does the recount if paid per ballot? Certainly not Diebold/Premier?! Color me stunned,

Not.

So we most likely pay the same corporation that has helped steal our votes, to recount their own count of our votes. Ookaay, that sounds about right,

Not.


Could Kucinich request a recount and potentially expose any fraud? Even though he isn't in a strong place? If DK could be convinced to expose these frauds through recount, I believe he would do it. Hell, Gravel would do it to try to save our country.

Could it work?

I'm grasping at straws here Michael, sorry.

Great article, btw! Should we address you as 'prophet' now? :evilgrin: :hug:

[sss1977]

138. What about Ron Paul?

He's got a ton more money and support than Kucinich, and there's already evidence of votes for him being lost. If he managed to get some kind of recount which found the results to be significantly different from the Diebold results on the Republican side, I imagine they'd look at the Democratic side too, or at least I'd hope so.

[Mnemosyne]

157. Anyone with the power of "losing" and that will use that

to expose what's going on in our ballot system, is fine by me.

We just need the truth out in the sunlight.

[understandinglife]

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

:hi:

deja vu all over again and again and .....

[MissWaverly]

131. recommend, this has been on my mind as well

Hillary was stumbling constantly before the New Hampshire primary, I find it hard to believe in the results myself, esp. when
the pollsters predicted Obama winning. Haven't the old guard had enough time the last 8 years to gouge us w/o cheating their way
to another same old, same old. More tax cuts for the wealthy elite, the military industrial complex and big oil.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

133. K&R. The machines must go.

[fascisthunter]

136. Everyone Should Be Demanding Hand Counted Paper Ballots

That's if people really cared about having a real legitimate democracy.

[Hubert Flottz]

140. K&R

We are no better off than Pakistan when it comes to administering or guaranteeing a fair election anymore. You pay your taxes but your vote and your voice don't count in America.

Trust the GOP? Trust Diebold? My Momma didn't raise no fool, like George's momma did!

[autorank]

143. We are nothing to them

That's why they treat us that way. Your momma or mine would give them a good smack, send 'em to bed,
and expect much better the next time around.

It's not the peoples' fault. They've been told - "oh optical scans have paper ballots, we're saved."

Well that's a total line of b.s. if I ever heard one. The same Republicans own the optiscan companies
as own the touch screen companies. Garbage in => garbage out.

No more faith in politicos... it always ends badly.

Happy New Year to you!!!!!!!!

[Hubert Flottz]

174. I hope we can go back to being the home of the brave in 2008.

Not a gaggle cringing cowards, being scared to death by a couple of lying, stealing assholes.(Dumbya&Dick)

[onehandle]

141. Debunked. Diebold only works for Republicans. nt

[Kurovski]

144. Diebold (Premier) works for Republicans who want to control elections.

Controlling who becomes the Dem candidate would be part of the scenario.

I don't for one second believe that any Democratic candidate works with Diebold (Premier).

If that's what's going on, I guess it would be easy enough to have a recount in this instance. Even a partial recount would be helpful. At very least it would let Diebold (Premier) know where many of us stand on their secret-vote tabulating ways.

[amborin]

146. nonsense

so hillary and company rigged the NH primary vote?

that is utter nonsense

by that logic, you can say Obama and Edwards rigged the Iowa caucuses somehow

fact is, there were many undecideds going into the NH primary

plus, Hillary had a nation-wide lead up until the Iowa upset

did the thought occur that people were favorably impressed by Hillary's NH debate performance?

and turned off by:
1. Obama's snide remark that Hillary's "likeable enough,"
2. Edwards' and Obama's cozing up to each other to jointly slam Hillary, and
3. Obama's and Edward's rather lackluster NH debate responses?

also----Obama is supported by big corporations and lobbyists as much as anyone

as for Edwards....where's the evidence he's "anti-bad corporation?"

is this based on the lawsuits he filed?

many attorneys file lawsuits against one or another corporation....doesn't mean they'd have a clue how to rein in and control corporations' growing political power

one does not follow from the other

while i'm on the topic of taking on large corporations......

some people use the term "corporatist" to refer to those who tolerate or support bad corporations

yet, this term is being misused

it has a specific meaning in the political science literature

and if one's wanting to control corporations' political power, it might be a good idea to have some familiarity with that body of work

[Catherine Vincent]

142. Kick!

To get rid of the DIEBOLD machines! :kick:

[FourScore]

145. Thank you autorank! Well done.

:hi:

[autorank]

168. You are most welcome!

Thank you!

:hi:

[progressivebydesign]

147. So the republicans who control the machines and HATE Hillary fixed it FOR her??

Umm.. yah, that makes lots of sense. The sour grapes crybabies are embarrassing. Methinks most of you were in jr. high school during the last primary season, or have never peered into the volatility of primary races nor the inherent problems in polling two votes within a few days of each other.

Stop looking for conspiracies every time your "rock star" loses a state. Some people are after a bit more substance perhaps.. less talk more walk. Maybe we should start electing speechwriters.

[althecat]

151. Be good if someone thought up a new way to abuse people who want their votes counted...

Crybabies and Sore Losermen/women are so 2004.

[philly_bob]

148. Four points, then signing out.

(1) It's too hard to keep up on the NH vote controversy. Skinner's uncharacteristic posting and retraction didn't help at all.

(2) I'm watching the discussion among Ron Paul people with interest. They seem to find the same kind of discrepancy between scanned and hand-counted ballots:

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=749 and associated comments.

To me, at least, they're like "fresh eyes" on a problem many of us have been talking about since 2004.

(3) I suggest we judge our candidates by how long it takes them to acknowledge that there's a problem.

(4) I don't believe either Hillary Clinton or John McCain knowingly participated in election machine fraud.

Hand-counted paper ballots. Thank you, Andy Stephenson. Now goodnight.

[althecat]

154. Thoughtful Points. And four responses...

Thoughtful Points. And four responses...

(1) It's too hard to keep up on the NH vote controversy. Skinner's uncharacteristic posting and retraction didn't help at all.

>>> Surprising indeed and very interesting to see how fast this is developing. There is much more momentum to the fraud debate than at any previous time in my experience..

(2) I'm watching the discussion among Ron Paul people with interest. They seem to find the same kind of discrepancy between scanned and hand-counted ballots:

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=749 and associated comments.

To me, at least, they're like "fresh eyes" on a problem many of us have been talking about since 2004.

>>> Will have a look. Our US correspondent referred in her report to the Paul fan interest in the subject. It is also rather hot in geekish circles. Reddit etc.

(3) I suggest we judge our candidates by how long it takes them to acknowledge that there's a problem.

>>> I agree. Election fraud allegations are probably better coming from party organisers than candidates - at least that would be my advice to them. It would be good to see statements from campaign chair people saying that they intend to do their best to keep a close eye on what happens in all the up-coming primaries.

(4) I don't believe either Hillary Clinton or John McCain knowingly participated in election machine fraud.

>>>> Neither do I. Nobody has said anything about McCain that I know about anyway. But the idea that someone might want to steal the primary on Clinton's behalf without her direct knowledge is not all that far fetched. Whoever wins this primary is almost certainly the next President of the USA. This is the race (not NH specifically by the primary generally) that you would interfere with if you wanted to influence US political history. C.D. Sludge said as much when Autorank posted his Urban Legend.

The Next Manchurian Candidate – The 2008 Primaries

Since 2003 and exposure of the flawed election machinery there have been two U.S. Federal elections, the presidential race in 2004, and the 2006 mid-term elections.

Concerns over the 2002 mid-term elections - particularly in Georgia - gave rise to the investigation that led to the 2003 discoveries.

We also know - thanks to Bev Harris and her team - "Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud" that there is prima facie evidence of tampering in the 2000 election.

This means the results in the last four U.S. Federal Elections are questionable. Consequently the composition of all branches of Government have to be in question.

Moreover election stealing need not necessarily be confined to Federal elections.

And following that vein of thought there is one other particularly valuable opportunity to intervene in the US election process and alter the course of history.

The Presidential primaries.

And there is one particular set of circumstances above all others which would make the primaries an even more important target for election fraudsters: namely, an election when one party has a virtual lock on victory.

And so as we approach the 2008 presidential election it is well worth looking at the primaries.

At first glance the Republicans are not even attempting to choose a credible challenger. Fred Thompson's believers hate Guiliani's mob with a truly impressive internal party ferocity. Meanwhile NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Chuck Hagel (interestingly a senator with close ties to one of the largest voting machine companies) are discussing running as independents.

If they do so they will split the GOP vote three ways and it is almost inconceivable that the Democratic Challenger could lose.

And so we have to assume the election stealers –will be making their plans on that basis.

Hillary Clinton vs John Edwards and Barack Obama. Whoever wins that race becomes President.

Now pretend you are an election stealer? Who do you want to win? Why?

You will want someone who does not shut down your nice little vote stealing and power peddling operation for a start.

And so in coming months we will see the beginnings of the message massaging that accomplish all real political clashes.

So listen to what the candidates say about election reform. It may speak volumes.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00164.htm#6

[balantz]

152. I just posted this on another thread, and I'll copy it here:

It is interesting to this plain and politically uneducated citizen that there seem to be two views at odds here. It appears to me to boil down to these: 1) An acceptance that the system is not corrupt, and organizations like Diebold are not unfairly influencing anything in our Democratic process; and 2) This voting system of ours has been corrupted for years now, has not been corrected, and cannot be trusted to give us fair and accurate information.

My concern here has nothing to do in particular with any one candidate, but everything to do with trusting, or not trusting our voting system.

[althecat]

155. Precisely correct... and well said..

[autorank]

181. You define the issues succinctly.

What stand should we have toward the government.

In the case of this administration, I believe that the stance should be highly skeptical. WMD, the lies to Congress about following the inspectors findings, and the rest of it argue that these people can't be trusted.

The events of Florida 2000 are instructive. The Republicans engaged in a fake riot to stop the vote recount in Miami (Republican Hill staffers flown down there by the party) and they fought recounts everywhere. There's a host of evidence that raises serious questions. This is the very best of that research. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Florida was just the start. Go here if you want to see a collection of articles on fraud, voter suppression, voting rights, etc.

With the Bush gang, skepticism is the watchword. That's not proof of election fraud in any particular instance. There's the potential due to the machines and general attempts to bribe public officials.

The answer is open, verified voting - all citizens encouraged to vote and citizens involved at every level. When you have a secret process, one outsourced to a company that's highly political, you don't have the opportunity to defuse false claims, nor do you have the chance to prove real claims. it's all just a big question mark. It hurts the entire system, not just our party.

I'd assume that there's always the potential for fraud and there's always a fairly simple solution - open up the process to citizen examination of the races in any federal election. Have real ballots with a proper chain of custody and allow for real review. This would give credibility to all elections and allow participation at a meaningful level across the board.

[Kurovski]

153. Kick. (nt)

[balantz]

156. How far spread is the use of these Diebold ballot scanners?

Are they being used in all states?

[EFerrari]

175. No. There are other brands. You can usually find out what systems

are in use by going to the Secretary of State's website of the state you want info on.

[RiverStone]

159. kick, kick, KICK!

:hi: Thanks for the link!

[chimpymustgo]

161. Kick - wake up people!! nt

nt

[bonito]

163. Kicking to read later

Damn I almost missed this post!

[Kurovski]

164. Another kick.

:hi: :kick:

[bobthedrummer]

176. k

[Twist_U_Up]

177. KICK

[althecat]

178. Honouring this thread..... kick....

[Kurovski]

179. Kick. (nt)

[Indi Guy]

182. kkkkkkk kick...

(sorry for the stuttering)

[bobthedrummer]

184. disappeared from gd-a kick