EXCLUSIVE: NH 'Recountes' Get Technical, Testy Before They Even Begin

[BradBlog]

'Send Lawyers, Peace and Money': New Hampshire Election Contests Get Technical, Testy Before They Even Begin
Election Integrity Experts Converge and Join Both Republican and Democratic Candidates in Quest for Transparency
New Hampshire Secretary of State Questioned About Documentation, Poll Records and Diebold Memory Cards...

-- By Brad Friedman from Sacramento...

Election Integrity experts from around the country have been converging on the Granite State over the last several days, in preparation for "historic" state-wide hand counts of New Hampshire's Primary Election ballots, The BRAD BLOG has learned. Counts of votes in both the Democratic and Republican side will begin in earnest this Wednesday, as long as the two contesting candidates deliver certified checks by 3pm on Tuesday, in an amount determined on Monday by Secretary of State William M. Gardner.

The battle for transparency and accountability on the ground, where some 80% of the state's ballots were tallied only by error-prone, hackable Diebold optical-scan voting machines, without human audit or spot-check of any kind, in last week's first-in-the-nation Primary, is already growing heated on both sides of the aisle, and even inside the statehouse as of Monday.

While representatives from each of the contestants have reportedly been working together on several aspects of the two separate counts --- each claiming to have requested the hand-counts in order to help answer questions about anomalous reported results --- what has become immediately clear, during our interviews with several members involved in the challgenges, as well as Election Integrity advocates now in New Hampshire and elsewhere, is that these election challenges may not likely mirror the partial recount in 2004, held at the request of then-Presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

As a two-page request for a detailed list of ballot and voting machine-related public documents and records, obtained by The BRAD BLOG, as submitted on Monday to Gardner by the previously obscure Republican candidate Albert Howard made clear, the battle for integrity and transparency in post-election challenges, may have finally caught up with the technical sea-changes in voting equipment that have overtaken the American election system over the last several years.

Due to extraordinary complexities in the ever more complicated computer systems, scanners, tabulators, record sets, databases and proprietary programming that have now been employed by election administrators across the country, the once simple task of examining and recounting paper ballots --- where they still exist, as they do in New Hampshire --- has grown exponentially more technical and confusing.

Early word on the ground in New Hampshire's capital city of Concord, along with concerns from candidates, surrogates and election experts alike, suggests that these "recounts" could be like no other, in the history of the country...

COMPLETE STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5560

[groovedaddy]

1. I hope this busts the process wide open and sheds some light

on to the chicanery repubs have played out through use of these machines.

[dkofos]

12. And dems too

[LanternWaste]

17. Which Democrats?

Which Democrats? :shrug:

[Gold Metal Flake]

63. Which Democrats?

Which Democrats? :shrug:

[pampango]

79. Here's a statistician's analysis of the NH "diebold effect".

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/01/the_diebold_effect_hillarys_vo.php

"To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the "diebold effect" on Hillary's votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that's after adjusting for variability in Hillary's votes due to education, income, total population, and population density."

"While this "diebold effect" varies in magnitude depending on the exact covariates used, it seems to center around an additional 5.2% of votes going for Clinton from Diebold machines. The same analysis shows a Diebold disadvantage for Obama of about -4.2%, significant with a p<.001, using the same covariates."

[dorkulon]

83. Wow.

I've been resisting the lure of my tinfoil hat on this one--although I never dismissed it out of hand, and support the recount, if only to assure us the count was kosher. I can't wait to see what happens here.

[DaLittle Kitty]

2. One Area Where Kucinich Can Play A Constructive Role n/t

[mod mom]

7. One of MANY areas Kucinich is playing a constructive role.

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. Yep.

[zanne]

3. Despite the obstacles, it looks like it's going to happen.

The article doesn't mention whether or not the candidates will be able to come up with the money, but it looks like they will. Excellent.

[Toots]

4. And this is an easy one where there are actual paper ballots instead of just "a paper trail"

This is good because it raises awareness but because there are actual paper ballots I don't believe there was any election fraud. If on the other hand these had been touch screen machines with only a paper trail it would be very interesting indeed. Paper trails only are a product of what the machine did and not what the voter did. Unless the voter gets to examine the paper ballot first before it enters the machine it relly doesn't help at all.

[BradBlog]

41. Please read the article...

You need to read the full article, as linked above.

[Tesha]

5. What will you folks do when the recount confirms the count?

You understand that there's a downside to all of this, right?
By choosing to do this in a place here the recount will
probably confirm the count, it will provide an easily-
parroted talking point for Republicans across the country:

"See? Votes *CAN* be counted electronically!"

ignoring, of course, the vast difference between optically
scanning paper ballots (as in NH) and paperless, receiptless
DRE voting machines (as may be used to steal many elections
later this year).

Tesha

[Marrah_G]

13. I tried to say that last week

good luck getting many here to understand what you are saying on this particular subject.

[fenriswolf]

16. I understand

and whats wrong with counting the votes *every* time their is a dispute. It's not like if they were right the first time they will be right the second time. If this is a red herring to give crediblility to the machines I hope we will be smart enough to know that the only 100% way to be sure is by handcounting.

[dkofos]

14. What about the downside for the clinton campaign if the machines counted wrong??

[KittyWampus]

15. "you folks"? You mean us folk who believe integrity is important in the election process?

What YOU folks don't get is, no matter WHAT the result the main point is- paper ballots are essential and RANDOM AUDITS OF THOSE PAPER BALLOTS are as well.

There was absolutely no way to know whether the electronic voting machines and tabulators were correct without doing a random audit and our democracy shouldn't rest on the fact some insecure, error-prone and hackable machines say so.

Random audits post-election are a necessity. They need to be done every single time.

It isn't complex and the fact you don't get something that simple is scary.

[Tesha]

26. All of us believe integrity in elections is *EXTREMELY IMPORTANT*.

> "you folks"? You mean us folk who believe integrity is
> important in the election process?

All of us believe integrity in elections is *EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT*.

But when it comes to the recently-held New Hampshire
primary, it's really clear that a lot of DUers need
medication (and I'm not joking one bit). All we've
read now for a solid week is ninety thousand threads
and replies by people who have *NO IDEA* how we conduct
elections up here in the Granite State but are *SURE*
that the election was stolen.

It wasn't, the recount will show that, and a lot of
people are going to have to come to grips with that,
with the fact that optical scanning, even on Diebold
machines, can work, and with the fact that their
semi-messianic candidate lost, fair-and-square.

Tesha

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

Then the recount will simply be a vindication for you.

If there's nothing going on, this will prove it and your great state will be able to hold its head up proudly. Only someone with doubt in their minds would be upset at the prospect of having their work checked.

:shrug:

[Tesha]

40. See the point I and others have raised about the "Cry Wolf" effect

> Only someone with doubt in their minds would be upset at
> the prospect of having their work checked.

See the point I and others have raised about the "Cry Wolf"
effect and how stupid it is to "cry wolf" when the odds are
so low that there's a real wolf in the neighborhood.

Tesha

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

52. The odds may be low, but they are NOT zero.

I for one am not willing to bet my nation on that, especially since I know the wolf really is out there waiting for all the gullible people to simply fall asleep thinking they're safe when they're not. That's the one thing the wolf depends on, and he won't get that satisfaction from me. I prefer to keep my shotgun loaded and pointed at the door instead of keeping my powder hidden and dry.

:shrug:

[Tesha]

55. The odds (of mischief) are far higher in an election using DREs; go spend time and money where...

The odds (of mischief) are far higher in an election using DREs;
go spend the time, money, and political capital where it may
actually have a chance of bearing fruit instead of where it
wil just hand the Republicans the talking point:

"See? There's no problem with machine-counted elections!
So be happy voting on your totally-unaditable DREs!*"

Tesha


*Because the Republicans will be happy to confuse people
about the difference between optically-scanned paper
ballots and completely paperless DRE voting machines.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. ...

:applause:

[JAbuchan08]

70. "Crying wolf" only applies when you know there is no wolf, yet claim there is

it doesn't apply when you suspect there is a wolf, but need proof. To cry wolf is to deliberately lie, which isn't the case here. Your argument is flawed.

[Tesha]

74. Okay, how about "Paranoid Derangement Syndrome"?

> "Crying wolf" only applies when you know there is no wolf,
> yet claim there is. It doesn't apply when you suspect there
> is a wolf, but need proof. To cry wolf is to deliberately lie,
> which isn't the case here.

Okay, how about "Paranoid Derangement Syndrome"?

Those of us who are here in NH know, to a very high
probability, that there's no wolf.

But people on an Internet far, far away, seem to be
sure, based on ludicrous speculation, that there is
a wolf. The subtlety that those people aren't delib-
erately lying but are merely misinformed or deranged
will be lost when the Republicans turn this into a
talking point about electronic elections.

Tesha

[JAbuchan08]

82. Because demanding verifiable voting, under odd circumstances

in an era of electoral "massaging," is paranoid, because one person "on an Internet far, far away, seeems to be sure" that most people in NH "know," "to a very high probability" (a contradiction in terms - you either know something or you don't) that there is no wolf.

It's hard to prove theres a wolf when you don't count the sheep.

[Tesha]

84. A scientist would disagree with you; all knowledge comes with an attached probability.

> "to a very high probability" (a contradiction in terms - you
> either know something or you don't)

A scientist would disagree with you; whether you
realize it or not, *ALL* "knowledge" comes with
an attached probability. We're just used to
dealing with a lot of knowledge where that
probability is so high that we can safely
forget the associated probability.

Tesha

[JAbuchan08]

85. You may be correct scientifically speaking

but in terms of general usage and common understanding claiming to "know" something is quantitatively different than claiming a "high probability" of knowledge.

... but I'd rather not argue about the degree to which all knowledge is unconfirmable. I'd prefer to know why it is that you think that your "high probability" of knowledge trumps my significant doubt? I suppose it is the "cry wolf phenomena?" I say, when in doubt count the sheep.

[Tesha]

86. That would be true except that there are costs to "counting the sheep"

> I say, when in doubt count the sheep.

That would be true except that there are costs associated
with "counting the sheep".

One, of course, is the actual monetary cost of counting
the sheep. That's not a huge cost, though, and as long
as we find some sucker person willing to pay
the cost, it's manageable.

But the cost here that really worries me is the political
propaganda cost. As I've mentioned more than once, when
it turns out that all the sheep are reasonably-well
accounted for, the Republicans will turn this into a
ready-made talking point that says:

"See? There's no risk in voting on electronic machines!"

They'll ignore, of course, the fact that there's a big
difference between electronic tabulation of verifiable
paper ballots and full-scale paperless DRE voting, but
that subtlety won't be caught by the average consumer
of the sound byte. And when the General Election is
stolen, people simply won't believe it can be blamed
on the paperless, non-auditable DRE voting machines

*THAT* is the real cost of crying wolf.

And if you don't believe me that this ridiculous recount
exercise here in New Hampshire *WILL* be turned into
instant talking points, read the comments that are
being posted to that WMUR TV News story that I
reference here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2696313&mesg_id=2697855

Tesha

[JAbuchan08]

87. Yeah, lets keep considering the political propoganda of the GOP

That's what guided us into Iraq, the Patriot act etc.

As they say in baseball, if you are two afraid to leave first you will never get to second. This cautious to a fault approach i getting no where. We're so cautious of our aim that we never get off a shot.
I'm tired of a Democratic party where "toughness" is a one-liner delivered en-route to capitulation. I'm tired of a Democratic party that is so afraid of being labled "radical" that they won't stand up for anything controversial.
In summation, do something may be risky, doing nothing is cowardly. I'm tired of Dems taking the cowards way out.
Maybe we don't win this time, but

[Tesha]

88. Maybe we'd do better to recount an election that actually *WAS* stolen?

Maybe we'd do better to recount an election
that actually *WAS* stolen/had all of our voters
"caged" out of it? Odds are we could think of one
or two if we really tried.

Instead of appearing to be fools by generating so
much heat over one that will turn out to not have
been stolen?

Tesha

[JAbuchan08]

89. We're always the fools

and the more right we are the bigger the fools we are. Are you, by the way, insinuating that I'm a fool? I remember in 2002 opposing the war in Iraq. I suppose I was a fool then. I remember saying that the Florida election was stolen, that the Supreme court was overstepping its bounds. I continued in that belief in 2004.

Your attitude is the same attitude that meets every suspicion of this type. You already KNOW what happened, so there's no need to bother confirming or debunking that belief.
You act as if a single election can disprove any fraud in any election everywhere. Assuming that the results of the recount conclusively prove there was no fraud,
that's like investigating an accidental death and concluding that there's no such thing as murder.
It's idiotic and even considering that possibility is making a concession to idiocy.

[Tesha]

90. I don't think you understand how propaganda is generated. (NT)

[JAbuchan08]

91. This thread is evidence that it is working already

First they ridicule any attempt at investigation as chasing "crackpot conspiracy theories" - that's the surface bit that you fear.

More insidiously, once they've successfully implanted that idea and framed the "acceptable" boundries of debate they can count on Democrats to do their work for them by avoiding anything that might be construed as "fodder for propoganda" You know what the best weapon against propoganda is? Setting an example for truth and for an open process.

You count the sheep everyday and balance the books. We Democrats need to use honesty and openess to throw the deception of the Republicans in relief.

[AntiFascist]

57. Excellent point...

I think some DUers may be nervous.

[BradBlog]

44. Funny, but so far, it doesnt seem NH much acts like it

All we've read now for a solid week is ninety thousand threads and replies by people who have *NO IDEA* how we conduct elections up here in the Granite State

Um, if you bother to read the full article, you may discover that even the folks who RUN the elections in the Granite State, may have NO IDEA how you/they conduct election up there in the Granite State.

[Tesha]

49. You have no idea what *YOU* are talking about. (NT)

[Laurab]

68. I guess you don't care for Obama

so your judgement might be slightly off, or maybe YOUR medication. There were a LOT of odd things about that election, and I wonder how someone can be so absolutely sure of what a recount might show. Do you know something others don't?

I know I watched the television screen all night and John Edwards started and ended at 17%, with never a change the entire time. Richardson MIGHT have had one change from 4 to 5%, I'm not positive. Obama and Hillary had so little change, that it might as well have been none. It seemed really odd to me that they had the percentages correct from the beginning to the end.

It also seemed very odd that the percentages were so different from what EVERY analyst and pollster thought, and that not a one had an answer for it. Except for the silly "Hillary cried" or similar ones that I don't believe for a minute.

It just seemed odd and I was glad to see the next day that others felt the same way. I don't care who wins or loses, I want to make sure the vote count was right. Mistakes can be made with "optical scanning, even on Diebold machines", in fact, I'd say, especially on Diebold machines. You seem very sure of yourself, and I'm wary of that - how can ANYONE be sure, unless they know something most of us don't?

[Tesha]

77. Mr. Tesha and I were at our local polling place essentially all day.

> You seem very sure of yourself, and I'm wary of that -
> how can ANYONE be sure, unless they know something most
> of us don't?

We do know something you don't know -- we were on the
ground essentially all day on Election Day at our local
polling station, right in the thick of it, talking to
actual voters, other campaigns, and our local election
officials (among whom Mr. Tesha is quite well known).

We didn't conduct a scientifically-valid exit poll,
but based on the reactions of the voters going in
and out of the polling station and which groups of
candidate supporters they talked to, we called the
election in our ward exactly the same way as it
turned out in the official count (and the Democratic
vote in our ward was representative of the state
vote as well, although this was not true on the
Republican side of the ballot*).

Hillary's voters were clearly in the majority with
Obama's second. Our guy, Edwards, had some support
but nothing to match theirs. The Richardson folks
had an intermittent presence during the day and
a few voters chatting with them, and Kucinich had
*NO PRESENCE AT ALL* at the poll, just one sign
stuck in the snow across the street and voters
would come by an commiserate with us (the Edwards
folks) that if Kuch had any chance at all, they
might vote for him but he didn't so they didn't
either.

I've seen *NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AT ALL* that the
results from the election don't match the will of
the voters. And all this bullshit about "Well the
hand-counted towns voted differently than the machine-
counted cities" only provokes me to say "Well, Duh!
The towns have radically different populations with
radically different concerns, and it has *ALWAYS*
been true that the distribution of their votes is
different than the distribution of the cities' votes."

Well, Kuch is pushing ahead with a partial recount
(The city of Manchester, then spreading to the rest
of my county if there's any evidence of anything)
so soon we'll all know which of us is bullshitting
whom.

Tesha


* There's a lesson here, too. In our city, Romney
won six of the nine precincts. But McCain won most
of the surrounding towns. Maybe the composition
of our city is different than the composition of
the surrounding towns?

[LanternWaste]

18. My fear is that...

My fear is that we'll end up calling for recounts in every primary election, the results will change at best only negligibly and will end up diluting the actual issue of voter fraud.

Diluting the issue to the point where when an recount is actually needed, people will simply look at us, shake their heads and honestly believe we're doing nothing but shouting about the falling sky... again.

[hootinholler]

24. The VOTERS are not fraudulent in these cases!

The counting of votes might be. It's election fraud, or tampering, anything but voter fraud.

-Hoot

[Tesha]

27. Precisely!

> My fear is that we'll end up calling for recounts in every
> primary election, the results will change at best only
> negligibly and will end up diluting the actual issue of
> voter fraud.

Precisely!

It will also have the effect of making the Democrats look
like damned-fool Chicken Littles, like a pack of boys-
who-cry-wolf.

And then the election actually *WILL* be stolen, and no
one will care. Just like no one is willing to impeach
Bush because we've "been there and done that" impeachment
thing already.

Are there *NO* chess-playing Democrats in our leadership?

Tesha

[Stevepol]

34. So who's going to decide which elections to audit and which ones not to?

EVERY ELECTION USING THESE MACHINES SHOULD BE AUDITED. And a recount is even better than an audit.

There are a bunch of benefits to recounting besides the fact that 80% the votes are actually counted by humans for the first time.

(1) It spotlights the greatest problem in our democracy today, our election system.
(2) It allows the election activists to educate the NH people and the people of America by bringing their expertise to bear on such matters as chain of custody, security of the ballots, etc. etc.
(3) It publicizes the cesspool that is the American election system where a private company, LHS I believe in this case, which has a convicted narcotics trafficker as one of its marketing directors, to program the machines that count our votes, to have access the machines during break-downs, glitches, etc. etc. And Hajjar is only one of many such felons playing a leading role in counting our votes.
(4) It will make it EASIER next time to get a recount or audit, not harder. The more Americans are faced with an obvious weakness in the system, the better.
(5) It highlights the maxim: "Trust but VERIFY." You can't have a democracy without it.
(6) It keeps these issues in the news and on the minds of the American people.
(7) It will make the legislature of NH and other legislators aware of something they apparently don't have the slightest awareness of.

I could go on with a hundred other benefits to this recount. I can't think of any drawbacks.

[Tesha]

39. Audited? Absolutely. Fully recounted? No.

And as I've mentioned before, I've written to the NH Secretary
of State calling for random auditing to always be performed.

Tesha

[frog92969]

72. Yes - "EVERY ELECTION USING THESE MACHINES SHOULD BE AUDITED"

Every state should demand a hand recount everytime until they get the message that we don't want them and even having these things is a waste of time.

[Laurab]

69. Aren't you aware there's also a republican recount?

Why, then would the Democrats look like "damned-fool Chicken Littles"? Actually it seems to me Dennis Kucinich is risking something here, but the "Democrats" aren't. I really, really don't understand your concern.

[Tesha]

75. Ahhh, I see. Your argument is that we're as sane as the Ron Paul nutballs?

Thanks, I'd rather see us use better sense than
those people too.

Tesha

[Laurab]

81. No, that wasn't my argument at all, but nice try

and it's not Ron Paul who requested the recount, but you knew that, although I read he was helping to finance it, which is nice if true. A limo driver with 8 kids probably doesn't have a whole lot of money. I haven't seen any public outcry about this, only a few people on DU seem troubled.

I'm baffled as to why you don't want a recount. "Mr. Tesha" and you were at ONE Precinct. I believe there are a few others in NH. I hope you're right about the results, and I think all it will do is make it easier to request a recount in another area where every expert seems to be baffled by the results. Even Hillary was surprised that she won, and the pollster from Zogby (I think), who was on with Jon Stewart had no answers for why they were so wrong.

Your twisting of what I said in my post was very good - even if it had nothing to do with what I said. You're doing a fine job of whatever it is you're trying to do - good luck with it.

[dysfunctional press]

20. if there was/is any chance that this recount would actually expose anything negative...

about electronic voting, it would NOT be able to move forward.
it might even be a trap, purposely set to 'prove' the trustworthiness of electronic voting systems.

[peabody71]

22. Demand a recount everywhere!

With auditable paper ballots that the voter confirms.

It is so fucking simple. The fact that the system is so complicated gives it all away.

[Tesha]

28. It costs money. Huge piles of it. Why do you think machines came into use? (NT)

[TahitiNut]

33. Uh-huh. Canadians are just ROLLING in money. That's why they only use paper ballots.

:eyes:

[riverdeep]

36. The people of NH are being reimbursed.

So, as far as that aspect of it, why should you care?

[Tesha]

38. Because campaigns aren't going to be willing to pay for this either.

Note that it's the relatively-poor Kucinich campaign doing it
and *NOT* either of the rolling-in-dough majors.

Tesha

[riverdeep]

46. I'm not following.

They ARE going to be reimbursed. What does it matter who's ponying up?

As to the future, the big campaigns probably have more philosophical reasons to not do recounts, rather that financial.

[Dumak]

66. How much money?

You seem to know a lot. What is the cost of an election - both with and without a recount?

[Tesha]

76. Well, in New Hampshire, we know that the cost to recount this election...

Well, in New Hampshire, we know that the cost to recount
this election (where about 525,000 votes were cast) will
be about $120,000. Nationwide, something like 110,000,000
votes are cast so $0.23/vote scales up to about $25 million
dollars. The question remains: who'll pay? It doesn't seem
like a lot of money until you actually need someone to write
the check.

Meanwhile, you also need to know that a hand-recount can
be much less accurate than a *FAIR* machine count. So what
you really want to do is careful, statistically-valid
random *AUDITING* of the machine counts to prove that
the machine count was fair.

And, of course, you want a secure, immutable paper trail
of ballots.

Paperless DRE voting is *VERY* bad. Optical scanning of
paper ballots can be very good.

Tesha

[tranche]

51. I agree completely!

Count it all, make it cost money, have a financial incentive for creating a transparent and trustworthy voting system. Wow, this is democracy and capitalism working as one!

[riverdeep]

35. Well, this doesn't sovle the problem ultimately.

However, anything that gets this issue into the spotlight of the horserace obsessed media is needed. Ultimately what they need to do is repeal the 'Help America Vote Act' (note how every legislative name will actually do the opposite-their deceit can be seen right in the title). Make machines that are hacker-proof, non-proprietary, transparent, and conduct, automatically, audits on every election on a certain percentage of counties.

[BradBlog]

42. I'd say THANKS for doing what the State should have done in the first place, but...

...you too really need to read the full article, as linked above.

[Marr]

50. I am amazed that some people can so quickly argue against transparency, simply

because their candidate is currently benefiting. It's almost depressing.

To answer your question, if Clinton turns out to be the winner of the recount as well, I will breathe a sigh of relief (though she is not my candidate). It would be an affirmation that the system is not completely broken.

[Tesha]

53. I'm not arguing against "transparency" for any reason or candidate.

> I am amazed that some people can so quickly argue against
> transparency, simply because their candidate is currently
> benefiting. It's almost depressing.

I'm not arguing against "transparency" for any reason or candidate.

I'm certainly on record here as thinking that Hillary is an
appallingly awful candidate, so the fact that she won NH
gives me no pleasure at all.

And I'm not opposed to transparency in elections, but you
don't gain that by forcing every election to be recounted,
you gain it by:

o Recounting those elections where the results are
dubious, and

o Auditing all other elections using statistical methods.

The results in New Hampshire are only thought to be dubious
by a passle of people in the blogosphere; no one here on
the ground in New Hampshire seems to thinmk there's
anything wrong and that *INCLUDES* me. (See my thread
in the "Elections" forum here at DU.) BTW, a hand recount
is actually far more subject to error than a proper
machine count.

And I've already written to the NH Secretary of State
calling for the implementation of proper random auditing
of all machine-counted elections in the state so I'm
completely in favor of elections having proper controls
and "transparency".

Tesha

[endarkenment]

61. There is no downside to validating that the ballots were counted correctly.

The process raises awareness.

Yes paperless DRE equipment is even worse, however the opscan equipment has been demonstrated to be easily hacked and there are no procedures in place to validate the count from these systems or to protect them before during and after the election from tampering.

[harmonicon]

62. I think this is something to be concerned about

but apparently enough people think there may have been discrepancies, that they feel this is needed to feel confident in the election process, which is most important of all - that's why there are provisions in place for this already. I think we'd all be happiest if this recount were to prove that the first count was 100% accurate. If this should prove that there was a miscount, or, worse yet, fraud, it will only make future recounts more likely, and possibly force states away from electronic voting. It is a double edge sword, but we shouldn't just be pessimistic - it does cut both ways.

[Yavapai]

6. Just figured it out,

The hackable Diebold optical-scan voting machines have been counting the people who voted for any other candidates than Clinton as the U.S. Constitutional (Article. I. Section 2. Clause 3) three fifths of all other Persons.

Of course it was just an honest mistake. :puke:

[Phred42]

9. Obama/Clinton 'Race' spat a Dodge?

I was wondering if this phony race flair up between Obama and Clinton was simply another Rovian type dodge to redirect our attention AWAY form the Kucinich recount in N.H.

What happened in NH is serious.


Just askin'

[The Wizard]

10. proprietary programming

is the bane of free and fair elections.
No one has yet to explain why the system for tabulating votes must be done in secret. We're talking about counting votes for those who serve the public, not those who serve the corporations. The way in which votes are counted should not be in the same category as defense secrets.
Unless and until our votes are counted in public and verified, our Constitution and every principle on which this nation is founded becomes moot.
We have suffered through seven years of a totalitarian dictator because of a corrupt election process. Maybe when or if Americans get nuts the size the Ukrainians demonstrated, and take to the streets in numbers that scare the shit out of the shysters and power brokers who have so corrupted government, things might change for the better.
These scumbags won't relinquish power easily. It must be pried from their clutches, even if that requires breaking some fingers to get the job done and democracy restored.
I do not want my tax dollars going to purchase the rope used to hang democracy until dead, and that rope is corrupt voting machines.

[dkofos]

11. Quit fucking whinning and count the paper.

I just don't see how counting ballots at a precinct level
is such a monumental task.

[orleans]

23. that's what i keep thinking. are there "thousands" of votes to be

counted in each precinct? i doubt it.

these people who have been given the job of vote counting and keep bitching and moaning about it apparently have never worked in a marketing research data collection firm, or as a secretary (or any of the the numerous jobs where you have to actually COUNT papers, flyers, promotional items for distribution, etc)

[Tesha]

30. Yes, there are!

> That's what i keep thinking. are there "thousands" of votes to be
> counted in each precinct? i doubt it.

Yes, there are, at least in the cities; that's why we use
the machines in the first place.

Here are the results for *MY* precinct, one of nine in Nashua, NH:

Clinton ----- 1,020
Edwards ----- 437
Gravel ------ 8
Kucinich ---- 13
Obama ------- 743
Richardson -- 81
Other ------- 0
-----------------
Dem total 2302

Giuliani -- 126
Huckabee -- 155
Hunter ---- 9
McCain ---- 700
Paul ------ 120
Romney ---- 719
Thompson -- 16
Other ----- 0
----------------
Rep total 1845

==================
Grand total 4147

[orleans]

32. that's in the cities. it's not in every little fucking precinct. n/t

[Tesha]

37. Right; they hand count in "every little fucking precinct". But we do have several cities, you know.

Even in Cow Hampshire.

Tesha

[orleans]

65. right. but you make it sound as if the ENTIRE STATE is going

to be a horrible inconvenience. i'm saying it's the cities that have to put themselves out--but that is not IN EVERY PRECINCT IN THE STATE IS IT?

[SoCalDem]

43. The people who oppose recounts, should have to use ATMs

that "decide" how much money to give them..

Deduct $100, deliver $20.

They would be OK with that?? right?

or their account gets ding-ed for the $100 the guy behind them in line gets..:rofl:

[Tesha]

29. You've never done it, I take it? Especially in the mileau of a "recount"?

> Quit fucking whinning and count the paper.
>
> I just don't see how counting ballots at a precinct level
> is such a monumental task.

You've never done it, I take it? Especially in the mileau of
a "recount", where the situation is usually dueling lawyers?

Tesha

[dkofos]

45. Who let them in??

[Tesha]

48. Who? The lawyers? All parties come to a recount armed with lawyers.

Maybe not for a dinky local election, but even then I've seen
it. But if you've invested (say) $70,000 in a recount of a
statewide primary, you'd be a damned fool not to bring
your lawyer.

How did you think recounts were done?

Tesha

[BuyingThyme]

19. Thank you, Brad.

[understandinglife]

21. Recommended.

"Not One Line Of Software Between A Voter And A Valid Election." -- remember the only losers are the voters if they don't know WHO is counting the votes .................

Peace,
Bob

[opihimoimoi]

25. Either Joe Biden or Chris Dodd was the true winnah....I would laugh my guts out

[SaveAmerica]

31. Does Kuc have all the money he needs?

[emlev]

47. IMPORTANT UPDATE

Deadline for payment for the recount is at the top of the hour.
Donations for the 'recount' requested by Kucinich can be made at [phone].
The campaign apparently is having some trouble with the website that means there's no way there to specify that your donation goes for the recount.

[lse7581011]

54. Does Anyone Know

if the money was received?

[emlev]

56. NH SoS office: No word yet on whether deadline has been met

Just got off the phone with them at 15 minutes after the deadline.

[emlev]

58. Deadline met by Kucinich! Not sure yet about Howard (Rep). n/t

[HughMoran]

67. Alright!

Good work Kucinich & co!

[blues90]

59. Reading the entire artical it seems like

NH is not going to make this easy of even close to accurate . I must admit i am a bit confused by the entire thing but form what I do understand this is one election costing almost $200,000 just got get information that should already be transparent and what will this cost if more elections are questioned and how will this play out in the general elections .

I am not amazed , but this should have been an issue far out in front since 2002 when these machines were used in Georgia . So it begs the question why were the house and senate letting this brew and continue to pose this enormous problem .

[riverdeep]

64. Who was in control at this time?

The Republicans have no motivation to make voting transparent, or for that matter to make voting easier. Declaring it a national holiday would go a long way to making voting easier, for example- ain't gonna happen if Republicans have a say. Anything that drives down the participation, helps them.

[Nutmegger]

71. BradBlog RAWKS!!!

:yourock:

[whirlygigspin]

73. good

n/t

[pjt7]

78. I was also in NH & am glad

they are doing this re-count.

I hope the process is as above the table.

My observations from talking to many people over the course of the entire day, was that Obama had won. In fact, a Hillary NH campaign insider confessed to me about an hour before the polls closed, that she would be happy with a 3% "close" loss. Boy, I'd like to talk to her again.

Also this recount shines the light on the private company that controls the Diebold machines & 80% of NH votes, LHS Associate.
I wish I was up there to ask the NH residents how they feel about the VP of sales & marketing for LHS having a felon conviction for drug dealing.

[Highway61]

80. anything but anything...

just fucking count will ya???