Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ward 4 Nashua also has some pretty cheesy numbers in the NH 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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:00 AM
Original message
Ward 4 Nashua also has some pretty cheesy numbers in the NH recount


NH ELECTION CONTEST UPDATE: 7.5% VOTE COUNT DISCREPANCY FOUND IN NASHUA, WARD 4 FOR CLINTON, EDWARDS


Clinton

Diebold: 1030, Hand-Count 959 / 7.4% error rate

Edwards

Diebold: 405, Hand-Count 377 / 7.42% error rate

Obama

Diebold: 673, Hand-Count 678 / 0.73% error rate


Whether this kind of error rate found in selected voting wards would actually change things is not nearly as important as the need we have to insure that the votes are counted in a transparent, verifiable way by HUMAN BEINGS.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5591
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mojowork_n Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. There are a lot of interesting photos of the state 'recount van', and
the many bulletproof, rigorous chain-of-custody fail-safe procedures used by the state of New Hampshire, to assure a valid hand recount of the votes... at:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org

It takes a while to load, but so does Bradblog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. You need to read this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Heh
Old story, that bev stuff. Too bad yall have her hanging around yer necks. The weight must be killing yall. Hope yall can be free of that crap and get back to fighting the real enemies.

But I get the feeling that yall will never be free. Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Old story?
A grifter is a grifter is a grifter.

She took money and research from DUers. The research she claimed as her own, but we have tons of threads proving she lied.

She accused other DUers of filing a qui tam lawsuit, when all the while she was the one doing the filing. The $76,000 she was awarded went into her personal account.

She threatened to sue Skinner and DU twice and has been banned from DU twice.

But what she did to Andy Stephenson was inhumane. :mad:

She is NOT welcome here, nor is her "work"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. How does it feel?
Carrying that dead weight and rolling around in that shit? Are ya happy? Ya seem happy. Meanwhile our real enemies are laughing at you. Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Bev Harris is the enemy of the election fraud movement
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 06:39 PM by Pastiche423
What part of, she is not welcome on this board do you not understand?

EarlG ADMIN
Fri Dec-03-04 11:31 AM

Statement on the Bev Harris situation

Over the past two years Bev Harris has received a great deal of support from the members of Democratic Underground, in her research, publicity efforts, and fundraising. In return we have played host to an 18 month-long squabble between Ms. Harris and other verified voting activists, and have even been threatened with lawuits by Ms. Harris herself. Despite this, we have publicly remained mostly silent on the verified voting squabbles.

We believe verified voting is a topic of crucial importance, and have been uncomfortable taking sides on an issue which, frankly, we should all be on the same side of anyway. Therefore we have kept most of our correspondence with the various factions private and attempted to cool things down behind the scenes. Like all issues discussed at DU, we have tried to focus the discussion of verified voting on the topic at hand, and not on the personalities of the participants. However, in light of the recent troubles, we feel compelled to make a statement.

In 2003 Bev Harris, along with a few other verified voting activists, were banned from DU for engaging in personal squabbles on the message board after they were repeatedly instructed to stop. Around that time, Ms. Harris threatened us with a libel lawsuit, claiming that we could be held responsible for comments made by other message board members who doubted the credibility of her project. She never followed through on this threat and we never heard from her lawyers.

Ms. Harris was reinstated shortly afterwards, after agreeing to put an end to the problems that got her banned in the first place. Nonetheless, those problems periodically recurred after her reinstatement. A few weeks ago, Ms. Harris again used our website to threaten DU with lawsuits, in her postings, in private messages to other members, and in rude alerts she sent to the moderators.

We sent a message to Ms. Harris telling her to stop hassling our moderators and members, and informing her that if she had a legal concern, she needed to contact us directly. We also let her know that her continued participation on this message board was dependent upon her behavior. The legal threats stopped, but we received no response from either Ms. Harris or her lawyers.

This is our personal experience with Ms. Harris. We cannot confirm or deny the veracity of claims made by others, including many former colleagues, her former publisher, and Keith Olbermann. But we can confirm that the claims made by others about Ms. Harris are not inconsistent with our own experiences.

We have remained as patient as possible in our dealings with Ms. Harris because we believe that the topic of verified voting is a crucial one. We were prepared to sacrifice a certain amount of tranquility on the message board if verified voting was being discussed in a generally positive manner.

Ms. Harris's recent spat with Keith Olbermann has made positive discussion of verified voting increasingly difficult on DU. For over a year and a half, our members have been split into pro- and anti-Bev factions, and recent events have only exacerbated that division. Yet this morning Ms. Harris returned to DU and started posting as if nothing had happened, while making liberal use of the alert button to complain to the moderators about our enforcement of the message board rules. At this point our patience finally ran out.

The fact that the disruptions have continued, despite repeated warnings from the administrators, leaves us with no other option but to bar Bev Harris from posting on this website. We no longer believe that it is productive to allow her to use DU as a platform to promote herself while simultaneously trashing us, our moderators, and others who have been previously supportive of her cause.

We still remain firmly committed to promoting discussion of verified voting, and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved.

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750#114188

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. No
An enemy of DU LLC, maybe. But not an enemy of the fight against the theives.

Now read this:

"....and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved."...

Quit shoveling shit. K?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. YOU are the one shoveling shit
if you take up for that liar.

Do you also approve of what she did to Andy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. What part of she ripped off DU, threatened the admins
stole Andy's payroll deduction money, slandered him when he was in post op, posted trouble's personal info to the net, faked her tax returns do YOU not understand?

Go kneel at her board. Don't bring it here. We won't have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
41. You too?
How ugly can you get for you to tell me what to bring here? I kindly ask yall to quit shoveling and point out that DU has asked the same and you personally tell me to kneel at her board. So very ugly.

Enough, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. Great advice from EarlG ADMIN
he makes the DU look good...

"....and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved."...

Thanks EarlG. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
42. Well, kster
All we can do is try. If some folks want to shovel the crap and get themselves known for that, there isn't much else we can do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. It isn't crap
it's the truth. But if you want to believe that fraud, it's on you.

Either way, there will be people here that will bring up her story everytime that fucking grifter's name comes up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. I like Bev Harris and I welcome her work
you do not speak for all of us at the DU.

Thanks Stevepol for the thread. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Do you like what she did to Andy?
Do you like how she stole money from DUers?

Do you like the research done by DUers that she stole and claimed it as her own?

Do you like that she threatened to sue Skinner and DU?

Do you like lying, grifting frauds?

Are you a bevbot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. EarlG ADMIN
"....and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved."...

Move on!

So what do you think about Stevepols thread? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Why won't you answer my questions?
Are you Bev Harris?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. No
What do you think of Stevepols thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Forget Stevepols thread. Forget all the OP's.

Hand Counted Paper bALllots or the thread gets it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. What brings you to this
neck of the woods. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Why won't you answer my questions?
Do you really like what Bev did to Andy while he was on his deathbed?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Andy was a S.O.B but I still liked him, and I also like Bev Harris
and I welcome her work at the DU. NEXT QUESTION. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojowork_n Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. I know, I've seen that post before.
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 06:44 PM by mojowork_n
It was late at night, and I've got a slow connection on an old notebook at home. Bradblog just isn't very accessible for me, as a result, and I'm very interested in the subject matter. ...Leaving aside the webdesign and other navigation issues. I just have problems when I try to go directly to Brad's site.

Freepress.org & freepress.net are trusted alternatives to Bradblog, but neither one came up with anything in the search field. The Election Defense Alliance may be another possible site, for these issues -- I think, I won't believe it for sure until kpete & TimeForChange confirm it -- but even their most recent stuff is 4 or 5 days old:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

So, all I wanted was some idea of the latest info, what was going on with the recount, and who was doing what.

Anyway, yes mea culpa, I knowingly posted a link to BBV. My bad, sorry.

In my defense (besides the fact that it was very late, and I was only trying to link to the photographs at the site, a few of which are interesting) that DU post on BBV is at least a couple of years old. And I had just recently, in the meantime, seen an online reference to Bev, and BBV.org, elsewhere -- on Bradblog.

Here it is, just a google search for Bradblog + Bev Harris + 2007:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ypyrk6JLA2UJ:www.bradblog.com/%3Fp%3D5544+bradblog+bev+harris+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Go to the cached search link, if you want to see what Bev said to Brad, on that web page. You'll never find it without the color highlighting for the search terms.

But, you're right, ripping off Randi (!?!) *was* awful. She's The Best.

Only I always wondered if that whole scandal wasn't in some way part of the whole cover-up. Could Bev possibly be, to the election theft of 2004, what Oswald was to Dealey Plaza, in 1963?

OK, I'll never do it, again.

This link has me still wondering, though, what was really going on?
Wait for the full download and scroll all the way to the bottom, and you get the same photos I linked to, and a credit to BBV:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5586#more-5586
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Please read my post #17
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojowork_n Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. If you'll consent to read my #18. n/t
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 06:49 PM by mojowork_n
Oops, I don't know if it's a real double post, or if it's because I was editing, but I think we just did an online equivalent of answering machine 'phone tag'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I think it's called "posting tag"
I read your post #18 and understand it was late. My only concern is keeping that lying grifter, her name and her "work" off of this site.

If Brad wants to quote her, he can do that on his site. I requested that he not post her shit here. He ignored me. So now I ignore him.

There are a number of excellent groups researching this issue that are seeking the truth. Bev is not. She is only seeking more money and more drama.

What she did to Andy may have cost him his life. She will never be forgiven for the inhumane crap she did to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Go look up The Stalking of Andy Stephenson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. reported in the Nashua Telegraph on the 19th
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/NEWS08/267211607/-1/XML12

According to the story, the discrepancies occurred because officials in Nashua 5 wrongly believed that some ballots with write-ins for vice president had not been counted for president. I'll refer folks to the story for details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. So, all of the errors were from...
hand counting, not machine counting?

Means nothing to the tinfoilers-- the article must be wrong, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. let's be fair
Someone has to do it, after all.

This particular mistake was (apparently) human error, but it came from a misunderstanding of how the machines operate. Arguably if NH didn't have the machines in the first place, no such thing would have happened.

That said, anyone who thinks that hand counts historically are error-free (or even fraud-free) is off the wall. (That obviously doesn't settle the question of whether and when machines should be used.)

Surely some of the errors came from the machines' inability to register voter intent, and there may have been other types of machine error as well. So far, these appear to be small.

Plenty of people who never did holler that the NH results were impossible -- or even unlikely -- really do think that ballots should be routinely recounted, or audited using statistical samples, just to make sure. Of course, that entails having some ballots to audit; NH is lucky there. I support routine audits, not routine 100% recounts.

And of course some people think the scanners should all be destroyed. Anyone is welcome to believe that, but NH doesn't exactly prove the point.

And, yeah, there are some people who will probably go to the grave believing that Hillary stole New Hampshire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. A misunderstanding of how the machines work is one of...
the gravest of human errors, although proper training of people who do a job two or three times a year is problematic when budgets are tight.

I've been ranting for years that hand counting is is one of the most error and fraud prone ways of countig votes, or anything else. To say nothing of being ridiculously time consuming. Why else would we have invented the adding machine, the abacus, and other devices to help us count things? Unless broken, machines count far faster and more accurately than we do. We trust our money to ATMs, cash registers, and bank computers, so why not trust our votes to such machines?

In this case, as in so many others, it wasn't the machine that had the problem-- it was the human voters and poll employees who had the problem, and didn't fix it before the recount, presumably because they didn't know they had a problem.

(That does NOT mean that I think DREs and other machines without proper recount capability should be used.)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I have to disagree with "unless broken"
A scanner doesn't have to be "broken" in order to miscount egregiously. We know this.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to get rid of scanners. As you say, hand-counters can miscount egregiously as well. Gotta look at the whole picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Of course machine counts are more accurate than hand counts
So what! We are talking about an election, meaning an adversarial process with historically provable incentives to cheat. It's because I don't trust humans that I reject machine counts. Cheating on the hand counts involves local conspiracies that always end up revealed (even when they get away with it). Cheating with programmable machines, however, can be done by remote operators (the corporation that makes the machine, or a hacker) undetectably.

Please don't pretend not to see the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. except...
it seems that every time someone proposes an audit system that would contend with undetectable remote hacking, someone else ripostes that it would be vulnerable to local conspiracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sure, that's a problem...
Sort of on the scale of "vote fraud" (one person cheating) compared to election fraud (results fixed centrally), wouldn't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. ?
I would take what you said as an argument that New Hampshire's system is pretty good -- which, in fact, I do think. Was that your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. ??
NH's system may or may not be good. Long as programmable machines do the count, there will always be doubt, so I'm glad there is a recount. It won't prove that optiscan is trustworthy, however. Again, to fix a paper ballot election demands huge on-the-ground operations. A programmable counting mechanism can always be fixed, so it always demands a hand count in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. sigh
To beat a well-designed random audit also demands huge on-the-ground operations.

But hey, you want 100% hand counts, go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
35. EVERYONE PLEASE READ #10
Simple and right to the point, Thanks JackRiddler

NAIL MEETS HEAD!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
40. That and minor "vote-gain" (~0.5%) from votes the humans could tally that the machines couldn't. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. If that's the best they can do, they'll need to get a better crew to rig elections.
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 10:42 AM by Wilms
What a bunch of amateurs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. kick. and even if recounts were clean, they wouldn't prove a good election K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
21. That's ward 5 dude
Same one as Bradblog has posted here.
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 Thu Oct 31st 2024, 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform 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