Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Hampshire SoS announces recount

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:03 AM
Original message
New Hampshire SoS announces recount

Well, well.. this could get interesting ....


http://www.sos.nh.gov/recount%20press%20release.pdf

RELEASED BY: William M. Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire
SUBJECT: Statewide Recount of the Republican and Democratic Presidential Primaries
DATE: January 11, 2008
RELEASE TIME: Immediate

CONTACT: Secretary of State William M. Gardner, phone (603) 271-3242

Secretary of State William M. Gardner announced today that Albert Howard, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Republican Party Primary and Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Democratic Party, have requested a recount of all ballots cast statewide. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kucinich have satisfied the requirements for initiating a statewide recount of the Republican and Democratic Primary.

Secretary of State William M. Gardner will estimate the cost of the recounts, which must be paid by the candidate(s) for the recount to proceed.

Secretary of State Gardner announced that the recounts will start Wednesday, January 16, 2008. The time and location for the start of the recount process will be announced after the estimate has been completed and payment of the estimated cost has been received.

New Hampshire law, RSA 660:7, provides that "any person for whom a vote was cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may apply for a recount." RSA 660:2, IV provides that if the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees provided in RSA 660:2, III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional costs of the recount." RSA 660:6 provides that if the person requesting the recount is declared the winner after the recount or loses by a margin of less than one percent of the total votes cast, the fees for the recount will be refunded by the State.
Secretary of State Gardner reports that the last time New Hampshire did a statewide recount of the results of the Presidential Primary was in 1980.

Unofficial results indicate that Albert Howard received 44 votes for nomination in the Republican Primary and Dennis Kucinich received 3,901 votes for nomination in the Democratic Primary.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. very interesting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is great news !
no matter the outcome !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
3. What a stupid waste of time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. why are you afraid of transparent and verifiable elections for all of us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Don't pull that "let me frame what you are" bullshit on me...
...the election was transparent, and it's verifiable.

Haven't you been paying attention?

The fact that it's verifiable doesn't mean it NEEDS to be verified, at great expense and trouble and perhaps creating a public perception that Dems are crying wolf over every election.

The reasons Obama lost are clear. Kucinich is being an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Albert Howard is a Republican

80% of it was counted by computer, so saying its was 'verifiable' is not true.

Sounds like you dont like people counting votes.

Whats the problem, what is your concern with counting votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Maybe you should ask Skinner, since he inquired and discovered
that the votes are verifiable.

Sounds like you're calling Skinner a liar.

What is the problem? Why would you accuse skinner of being a liar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Good point...

I didnt know anything about what Skinner said.

But if what you say is true, then I guess we have a difference of opinion.

(and that was a nice try at flamebait saying I am calling skinner a liar... but you need to work on it little more 'wink').

And ya know what, we can settle it without a doubt.....

With a hand recount.

You got a problem with counting votes?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. The 80 % opscan are only able to be verified if they are audited. They have only
been tabulated by a machine that has been shown to be easily tampered with. Couple in the fact the the machine oversight is by John Silvestro:

In last week’s program LHS President John Silvestro admitted his staff violated Connecticut security protocols during the 2006 election. Memory cards were swapped by LHS staff members who saw protocols from the State indicating they were not to touch machines. Still, Silvestro touts the benefits of privatizing Connecticut’s election to his company that sells Diebold products. He said: ‘–I feel very confident in the fact that the process itself is better left in the private venue than it is in the public venue when I see the influence that each political party can put on people and make things happen in this country, whether right or wrong. I mean if you think about it. I would ask you the same way. Would you like politically connected people to both parties to be in charge of running the process of creating voting machines, counting ballots, and you know, would you like that? I don’t know.’

Silvestro attended an August meeting to correct security problems his staff caused when they swapped memory cards in violation of the Secretary of State’s protocols. The problem would be solved, he offers, by automatically auditing any machine that fails during a vote. Will his ideas work? And even if they are good solutions, what should we make of his role in providing Connecticut elections?

Throughout our year long investigation LHS staff members have tended to say things that reveal either confusion about State protocols or an unwillingness to accept direction from the Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz. In this comment from 2006 LHS Director of Sales and Marketing, Ken Hajjar, admits he saw the written protocol from Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz indicating he was not to handle voting machines or obviously memory cards.

-snip
http://talknationradio.com/?p=101

He also said, “I feel very confident that the process itself is better left in the private thing than it is in the public venue when I see the influence that each political party can put on people and make things happen in this country whether right or wrong, I mean if you think about it and I’d ask you the same way. Would you like politically connected people to vote parties, to be in charge of running you know the process of creating voting machines, counting ballots and you know would you like that? I don’t know.”

Silvestro has been a politician for years in the town of Londonderry New Hampshire where they use the voting machines his company sells. The SEEC will have to evaluate the twin histories of Diebold and LHS Associates, to fully understand their behavior under contract with Connecticut. Perhaps the SEEC can assist poll workers who will now have to identify just which protocols the state intends to have on site during upcoming elections.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/general_news/connecticuts_elections_are_sti.php

Jeffrey Dean, Senior Vice President of Diebold, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, of planting back doors in his software, and of using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years.” While heading up the development of Diebold’s GEMS controversial central compiler software source code at Global Election Systems (later, purchased by Diebold, and renamed Diebold Election Systems), convicted felon, Jeffrey Dean, worked in association with John Silvestro, Owner and CEO of LHS Associates of Methuen, MA, which maintains, pre-programs and configures the voting machines and memory cards of five New England States, including New Hampshire.*

· Diebold Election Systems is under tremendous scrutiny nationwide for sales of voting systems proven to be highly vulnerable and easily hackable by anyone from a teenager to a terrorist. Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, recently resigned, Diebold shareholders and numerous others have filed suit, and contracts for Diebold voting systems sales and services are in question, and being canceled, throughout the country.

· According to Peter Phillips, Director of Project Censored,“Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the software security in their voting machines.”

-snip
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2420

UNFORTUNATELY THE BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY HAS BEEN BROKEN IN NH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. "UNFORTUNATELY THE BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY HAS BEEN BROKEN IN NH."
This needs its own thread. A recount is meaningless if what you're recounting has been tampered with in the meantime. I sure hope this aspect gets some play.

In a worst case scenario, we do a recount, using the now corrupted results, and we gain a false sense of security about our election process. For those who may have tampered with the vote, they kill at least two birds with one stone-they manipulate the vote, and all future calls of election fraud are met with a groan.

For this reason, this recount and the way it's done is critical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. sure it's verifiable... by a recount!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Sure, do a recount of EVERY election! And a recount of the recount!
And after we're done, we can do another recount!


Bah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I think brad says it best
Discussing why things like actually counting the ballots in New Hampshire would have been a great idea. And on the lunacy and self-destructiveness of progressives (like this uninformed front-pager over at dKos, and his even lesser-informed followers, such as Markos himself) buying into the conspiracy theory that the dozens of verified, independent, multiple-sourced pre-election polls were wrong, but the unverified and uncounted election results, as announced, are somehow magically known to be accurate.

The results might well be right. But unlike the transparent and verifiable polls, no human being has actually bothered to count or even examine 80% of the ballots in NH. So whose the irresponsible crackpot here? Some of these folks are digging their own November grave


http://www.bradblog.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I'm not a big fan of a recount....
.... but there's no such thing as a transparent election when Diebold machines are involved. It's been proven over and over again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Why would a recount in any election bother you?
I don't understand that thinking.

It isn't a recount for the candidate!

It's always a recount for you and me! The voters!!

Please explain why it bothers you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. And money
It is not as if Kucinich is awash in money that he can afford to pay for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. Weird! My sister told me that this was off the table at 8PM tonight...
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 02:30 AM by Breeze54
I didn't believe her of course but glad to see it's going ahead.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Well, its going to be interesting...

Not just the results...

But to see exactly who throws a fit about counting votes in an American election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
15. Did New Hampshire recount law change since 2004?
The 2004 recount requested by Nader was a partial recount. I don't see how that is allowable under the current statute. Did they change the law since 2004, did they just not follow the law in 2004, or am I missing something in the current statute that does allow a partial recount?

Here's an excerpt from the statute (the link at the bottom gets you the entire Chapter 660):

660:5 Conduct of Recount. If directed by the secretary of state, the state police shall collect all ballots requested from the town or city clerks having custody of them and shall deliver them to the public facility designated by the secretary of state. At the time and place so appointed, the ballots cast for such office shall be counted by the secretary of state and such assistants as the secretary of state may require. When counting the ballots, the secretary of state or his or her assistants shall visually inspect each ballot. No mechanical, optical, or electronic device shall be used for the counting of ballots. The candidates, their counsel, and assistants shall have the right to inspect the ballots and participate in the recount under such suitable rules as the secretary of state may adopt. If the candidate requesting the recount cannot attend the recount, the candidate shall designate, in writing, to the secretary of state the name of an individual who will attend the recount and who will be authorized to make decisions on the candidate’s behalf. Each candidate or his or her counsel or designee shall have the right to protest the counting of or failure to count any ballot. The secretary of state shall thereupon rule on said ballot and shall attach thereto a memorandum stating such ruling and the name of the candidate making the protest. If, at any time during the counting of the ballots, a discrepancy appears in any ballot for any reason, the secretary of state shall suspend the recount until the discrepancy is resolved, at which time the secretary of state shall continue the recount. In no event shall a discrepancy result in a second recount for the same candidate, as provided in RSA 660:3.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa660.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Nader had to pay for it
and when the first batch of numbers came in and didn't show any significant discrepancies, Nader stopped paying for it and called it off. Some people still think that the precincts recounted weren't the suspicious precincts in that case (Nader didn't get to choose the order). So this time lets hope they recount the whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. .

:kick:

for the mid-day crowd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC