NH Activists: W Loss of Ballot Chain of Custody, a Recount Provides No Assurances

[mod mom]

-snip

In the Election Night count, the first count, the count that matters, all hand count elections have complete citizen oversight as a check against the kind of corrupt outcome you would find in a ballot swapping affair. But in a recount, there is absolutely no citizen oversight for the entire time between Election Night and the recount itself.

If we are going to assume the possibility that some nefarious super spy has bothered to rig a New Hampshire election, wouldn’t we assume they have also taken into account our liberal recount laws? Wouldn’t we assume they might have a Plan B to ensure a recount validates their nefarious doings? Is it at all logical that evildoers who find their way into our machine counts might not also find a way into our recounts?

Open and honest elections require citizen oversight. This is a simple thing to accomplish in a hand count Election Night count. But in a recount it is impossible.

In a recount, citizens have no control over the ballot chain of custody. Unless citizens have stood guard over every ballot box from the moment that it was sealed and signed by our local election officials, the recount provides no more assurance than the machine counts. A recount of a secret computerized vote count is just another weak link in the chain of publicly observable ballot custody required for honest and open elections.

-snip
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5324

[IndyOp]

1. It is a painful and true fact that if the chain of ballot custody is broken

then even a recount that perfectly matches the results is not sufficient evidence that the initial machine count was accurate.

Keep in mind, though, that if the machine count was wrong because of an unintentional programming error or if the machine count was rigged by a few individuals who don't have the ability to get to the ballots alter them to match the machine count -- then a hand count could reveal a discrepancy.

In Ohio several people who worked in one county's elections office were convicted of rigging the 2004 Presidential race recount -- so there is always a possibility that there will be people who can get to the ballots and alter them to match the machine count. Some of the people who participated in the Ohio recount reported having seen stacks of "perfect ballots" -- that looked like they had been machine punched, never touched by human hands.

[mod mom]

2. Remember OH Recounts w Blackwell? Pre-stage events.

[Deep13]

3. I see. After the Obama supporters lose the recount...

...they will still have another basis to live in denial.

[EFerrari]

4. Who are these Obama supporters I keep hearing about.

This isn't GD-P. This is the Election Reform forum.

[mod mom]

5. Think about this logically. A strict chain of custody provides all that there

has been no tampering with ballots. In Ohio, in '04 pre selected precinct had ballots arranged in piles of * and piles of Kerry.

BTW. I am not an Obama supporter but someone who demand transparent and verifiable elections. Review my posts if you like. It's about protecting the will of the people over a small group of partisan corporations. Elections should NEVER be outsourced.

[K Gardner]

12. This has nothing to do with Obama. Evidently you've wandered into the wrong forum..

the partisan attacking and petty bickering is two doors down to the left, in GD-P. If you don't want to discuss the overall serious issue of election reform, please drift on back to the bickering board. Thanks.

[JackRiddler]

23. Please stop the false accusations...

It's not Obama supporters who want to know that the machine count was clean (or who want to eliminate machine counts altogether). For example, I am not an Obama supporter by any stretch.

I expect the decisive difference is between people who remember 2000 and 2004 and people who prefer to forget it.

[mod mom]

6. Questions to ask from NH for Democracy:

It is time for real accountability and change. We get this not from a recount, but from an investigation. We need questions asked and answered, and changes made so we have a clean election in the Granite State in November 2008, and in every election thereafter.

The first question that needs to be asked is: Why did the NH Ballot Law Commission approve this voting equipment in March 2006 when the vendor himself testified it was defective and after citizens testified for more than four hours against the approval?

Second question: Why did the State not respond to citizen requests for a rehearing after California decertified the same equipment we are using in New Hampshire?

Third question: Why has every citizen request for risk mitigation through reasonable procedural changes and legislation been ignored or obstructed by the State?

Fourth question: Why did the legislature, in two separate sessions under both Republican and Democratic majority, kill legislation that called for full software disclosure for voting equipment?

Fifth question: Why did the legislature kill a bill calling for voting machine approval only if those machines can guarantee the integrity of election results?

Sixth question: Why did the legislature kill a bill calling for election night parallel hand count of a percent of ballots to check and balance against the machine count? Why did the State refuse to make this a recommended procedure for every machine count polling place?

Seventh question: Why did the State do nothing after hearing testimony from internationally recognized computer security experts suggesting recommendations for risk mitigation procedures?

Eighth question: Why did the State, after hearing from the Diebold representative in September 2007 that more secure firmware was available, not insist on having that firmware tested and installed in time for our Primary?

Ninth question: Did the State have any prior knowledge that an executive in the firm programming our elections is a convicted drug trafficker, and does the State think this is appropriate for a firm handling such sensitive state data as our votes?

Once those questions are asked, the very last question must be: What changes will the State implement for November's election so voters can believe in the results?

The days of the status quo are over. The New Hampshire recount, a valuable check and balance for free and open elections, is useless in the face of possible high stakes election tampering. Using the recount to justify secret vote counting is just part of the status quo.

We need an honest and open first count on Election Night, and that will happen only with structural change, not a recount.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5324

[EFerrari]

7. This chain of custody issue is very serious.

Do you know what the NH people are thinking today, mod mom?

I wonder if there's some way to contact the SoSs of the states who haven't voted yet and inquire what precautions are being taken re custody of their ballots.

[Whisp]

19. yes. it just hit me like a ton of bricks!

i'm now thinking this is Not the right thing to do this round - asking for a recount. holy cripes this is frustrating and enraging - without that chain of custody secure there is No point in asking for a recount that may well be fudged too and set a precedent for being very wary about recounts coming up.

what a fricken mess.

[EFerrari]

20. It is a fricken mess. So, we have to make mess-o-ade.

The folks at DFNH seem to be nimble, informed and good communicators.

Dennis has the experience of Ohio 2004 -- where he was ahead of the curve, to boot.

We have a network today that didn't exist then.

My bets are on us.

[Whisp]

21. I sure hope he brings up the CoC first and foremost!

and not proceed if there is any question as to the integrity of the safekeeping and make That as public as possible.

I do feel a bit better now tho, I'm sure he knows what he's doing - usually does. ;)

[EFerrari]

8. Something else: If any rep understands the DFNH concerns

about a stacked recount, it will be Dennis. I hope he and the NH folks are in conversation.

[Tesha]

9. Would it be unkind to point out that this article provides *NO EVIDENCE* that there's...

Would it be unkind to point out that this article
provides *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL* that there's any
problem with the chain of custody of the paper
ballots? All the article does is speculate "what
if?"

Exactly how many New Hampshire officials are we
eventually going to speculate are "in" on the
theft of this election? How many town clerks
and ward workers? Is the Secretary of State in
on it? Or his deputy?

Tesha

[EFerrari]

11. The issue seems not to be this election but elections in NH. n/t

[Tesha]

14. So "where's the beef?" (NT)

[EFerrari]

15. Have you read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x492162#492198

[Tesha]

16. Uh, yes! That's *THIS* thread. And I even read the linked article. ;-) (NT)

[EFerrari]

17. Yes, it is this thread.

The laundry list is really specific, isn't it? It sounds like the people in NH have put in a lot of time -- you'd have to, to have such an intimate knowledge of your state's needs.

What did you think of those questions?

[mhatrw]

18. Tesha, what can YOU tell us about the chain of custody of ballots in NH? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

10. One tiny bit of optimism: A recount forces a wider conspiracy...and

the wider the conspiracy, the more chance for the detection of crime.

Ohio 2004 was initially a coup for the cheaters. But, through enormous effort, a few of the conspirators were prosecuted - although the ones prosecuted were probably the scapegoats.

Maybe by 2011 the fruits of this exercise will bloom...

[riqster]

13. A recount provides data, and a starting point for further investigations

...which is worthwhile in and of itself.

The recount will garner press, and the COC issue will become known, as will the Reep Partisans who control the electronic voting process. The average American knows jackshit about their elections, they need information.

Doing nothing will result in quiet; resulting in another pile of elephant dung being swept under the rug.

[galloglas]

22. A recount is dangerous to election integrity ??

This seems to be the opinion of certain national ER figures, and others with direct ties to NH... but why?

Why would supposed reputable ER activists be sending out appeals to others to ask Kucinich, or Ron Paul, to "please, please, please, don't ask for a recount" !!! Why should we not look behind the Wizard's Curtain ?? Whose ass is being covered here?? And why??

A recount may/might confirm an error or fraud. It cannot prove that the election was not tampered with.

No one "loses" if there is a recount. The main question is whether a recount alone is sufficient scrutiny to apply to the question at hand.

So why are we being counseled to "beg" Kucinich to not file for a recount???? When the rats are creeping around the pantry, IMHO, the more light shown on the matter, the better.

How much longer before the "gatekeepers" among us start crying out to "Stop! Stop Kucinich!! You'll take the whole movement over the cliff with you !!" (I've already heard the meme "Don't do it. It's a trap!!"

My single question to DU ERD people is this. "Cui bono??" (and I don't mean which candidate).