|
14 Jan 08 - 10:55 AM (#2236126) Subject: New Hampshire Redux From: Amos "By Wednesday morning, stories were flying all around the Internet--have you looked closely at the results of the primary? There was something strange about the votes, they said, about the difference between municipalities that hand-counted votes and those that used optical scanners. The chatter increased, and by Friday, the New Hampshire Department of State issued a press release announcing that two candidates, Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Albert Howard had requested and been granted a recount, having met the following requirement: "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." The recounts will begin on January 16, at a time and location to be announced after the state has completed an estimate of the cost and received payment based on that estimate. " A detailed story on the discrepancies and the devices can be found on this page A |
|
14 Jan 08 - 11:06 AM (#2236137) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Amos Sorry--I should have prefixed this with BS. A |
|
14 Jan 08 - 12:32 PM (#2236219) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: PoppaGator Who the hell is Albert Howard, and what does he hope to gain from a recount? |
|
14 Jan 08 - 12:40 PM (#2236225) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: McGrath of Harlow They charge for recounts in the States? That's a bit strange. |
|
14 Jan 08 - 01:29 PM (#2236258) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: katlaughing No kidding...pay for the "privilege" of proving them wrong. They have no integrity or this wouldn't even be an issue. Good luck to Kucinich. |
|
14 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM (#2236371) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon Albert Howard, a chauffer, recieved 44 votes. He is claiming that he actually got 187 votes. For this, should the citizens of New hampshire have to pay for a recount? And Dennis Kucinich, for whom I once considered voting, recieved less than 4000 votes - nowhere near enought to justify a recount by hand at taxpayers expense. Please read the RSAs that Amos posted - Tom |
|
15 Jan 08 - 12:19 PM (#2237032) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Riginslinger Yeah, I saw a thing about Albert Howard on, I think it was, "60 Minutes." |
|
15 Jan 08 - 12:34 PM (#2237040) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: GUEST,dianavan After the votes are re-counted, it will be determined who actually pays for it. It may be that Howard and Kucinich will have to pay the cost. Even so, with such wide mistrust, it won't hurt to double check that the system is in order. |
|
15 Jan 08 - 01:22 PM (#2237078) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri If this were about results: In the NH primary, Clinton, the winner, received 112,251 votes, or 39.1% of the votes Kucinich received 3,919 votes, or 1.4% of the total number of votes cast. If Kucinich can claim another 34.7 percent of the total votes after a recount, he wouldn't have to pay. McCain received 37.1% of the votes while Hunter got 0.5% Hunter needs to find another 33.6% of the total. This is more then the second place candidate Romney got. I don't know how many votes that comes out to. Math is NOT my strong suit. BUT The the RSA states, "...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..." - this is BEFORE the recount. The purpose of the RCA, I believe is to ensure the towns don't get stuck paying for recounts done for frivolous reasons. Somebody has to pay for people to sit there and do this, and if it's only because a candidate is trying to make a statement and NOT because he thinks an error screwed him out of a win, let the guy making the 'statement' do it. |
|
15 Jan 08 - 01:54 PM (#2237100) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri Oh yeah - according to what Amos posted, the complainants would either have to win the primary or lose by less than 1% after the recount to not pay for it. If you think there's a chance that will happen, let me know. I'd be willing to make a small wager... |
|
15 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM (#2237123) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: GUEST,Jon Whatever, as a UK observer I. I hope when you wind up with the presidential vote,Barack Obama wins. |
|
15 Jan 08 - 03:29 PM (#2237176) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon Minor correction: both candidates who are seeking recounts will have to pay a $2000.00 fee plus the cost of the recount BEFORE it commences. The cost for a Republican recount is $57.600.00 and for a Democratic recount, $67,600. If either ends up with a total of within 1% of the winning vote, the money will be refunded. Certified checks are due today - Tom |
|
16 Jan 08 - 11:56 AM (#2237744) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: bankley it's more about looking at a faulty process once again (remember Florida and Ohio).... forget about any real 'change' if the fix is already in.... |
|
16 Jan 08 - 12:14 PM (#2237755) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Richard Bridge If there is genuine doubt about the accuracy within reasonable bounds of a voting system, those responsible for the system should pay for the recount. It is the country not the candidates who claim the virtue of being a democracy, and if votes are not counted with reasonable accuracy there is no democracy. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 12:28 PM (#2237764) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Little Hawk The reason Dennis Kucinich is calling for a recount is NOT for his own benefit, it's on a matter of principle, and he has stated that. The recount, if voting fraud has occurred in New Hampshire, would stand to benefit Obama, not Kucinich, and Kucinich knows that, and he has made that clear in no uncertain terms. Therefore he is asking for a recount NOT for his own gain, curmudgeon, but on behalf of democracy...on behalf of honesty in politics. He wants to remove computerized voting machines from the process and have all voting on paper ballots, which provide physical evidence after the fact. Computerized records can easily be altered. Paper ballots cannot. How do you find that objectionable? It is costing the Kucinich campaign money that they can ill afford to do this...and they're doing it on behalf of Obama!!! Because if anyone had that win stolen from them by fraud it was the Obama campaign. The fact that Dennis Kucinich is doing this speak volumes for the man's character, because he himself doesn't stand to gain a thing from it. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 12:32 PM (#2237766) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri Bankley, if the process is deemed faulty, I'm sure a LOT of people will be interested in fixing it. Richard, you've explained the 'within 3%' requirement for payment by towns with your use of the word 'reasonable'. I believe it may help others understand. If there's an obvious and statistically significant discrepancy discovered, there can be a case made for discontinuing use of machines in favor of paper ballots. It may not change the primary results, but it would be important. I don't know if the complainants could be reimbursed. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM (#2237777) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Liz the Squeak I can't help thinking that 'New Hampshire Redux' is a fancy name for an indigestion cure... then I see what it refers to and think... no, probably not going to cure anything. LTS |
|
16 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM (#2237850) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon All votes in New Hampshire are on paper ballots. Some are counted by an optical scan system, others counted by hand. Details here. As of this morning, Kucinich had opted to pay for $27,000 worthf o recounts, mainly in urban areas. I don't disapprove of his actions, but would rather he use his money better - Tom -369- |
|
16 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM (#2237863) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Clearly, Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who believes in and intends to protect and uphold our democracy. That, alone, makes him then only one worthy of our vote. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM (#2237894) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Amos the only presidential candidate who believes in and intends to protect and uphold our democracy Why do you believe this, Carol? It sounds a tad, um, over-zeralous if I may say so... A |
|
16 Jan 08 - 03:28 PM (#2237896) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC He's the only one who is willing to put his money where his mouth is and take the steps needed to remedy the problems we've had with vote tampering over the last few elections. Everyone else seems to be willing to just let it go on unchallenged. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM (#2237904) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Amos Everyone else seems to be willing to just let it go on unchallenged. I agree Dennis is doing the right thing in New Hampshire, just as he did with the impeachment proposition. That's what I like about him. I wish he could be in the primary, and I really do not understand why he is being so slighted in exposure. I also think, however, that he may not be scrappy enough to win in the race. This is a tradition in American politics -- the really smart ones often don't make the race because they are smart enough to see both sides and stay linked to the core facts rather than the battle of rhetoric. Adlai was a classic example. Unless Dennis is willing to kick some serious rhetorical butt, he will continue to be seen as a "brainy also-ran", I think. WHile I protest this widlly in my heart, I also think it is a cold fact of the realpolitik involved. It occurs to me that given his slender chances under present conditions, he might do well to change gears and become a virtual Elmer Gantry, passionately calling the other candidfates on their compriomises and rubbing their faces in it. Ya never know. But it may be he is too civilized to resort to such jungle tactics. A |
|
16 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM (#2237907) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: beardedbruce I don't understand. When the Ohio (2004) votes came up ( a lower percentage) different from the polls, there were those here who declared that that was evidence of fraud by Bush- Yet here we have the polls off by a larger amount, and no-one has declared that Hillary is guilty of fraud... seems like we have a two-tiered system here, one set of rules for Republicans, and a looser, more accepting set for Democrats. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 04:02 PM (#2237917) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC I'm sure Hillary's guilty of fraud as well as a whole host of other unsavory things, beardedbruce. That's why I'd like to see Kucinich scrape together enough money to pay for the recount. Would you care to contribute to help ensure that Hillary doesn't get away with this fraud? |
|
16 Jan 08 - 04:04 PM (#2237921) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri Bruce, Hillary isn't already in office and this is a primary, not an election. As to where Kucinich is putting his money, this seems like an exercise in futility or a desperate attempt to get some attention. We'll have to wait for the results though. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 04:09 PM (#2237925) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Amos, there's no one scrappier than Dennis. What he did in the face of multiple assassination attempts when he refused to privatize Cleveland's municipal electric utility, and knowing he was sacrificing his own chances in future elections. You can't get any more scrappy than that. The reason he's not getting more exposure is because there is a media blackout against him precisely because he's an effective fighter on behalf of the voters in this country, and the people who own the media don't want you to have the opportunity to hear what he has to say because it goes helps the voters and hurts the financial interests of the corporate oligarchy. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 04:41 PM (#2237951) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: GUEST,guest RB Jeri.... there are a lot of people interested in fixing this fraudulent system. They don't happen to be the power brokers, king-makers and Diebold owners. Just ordinary folks who have donated money to help finance the recount for both parties. Dennis is hoping for enough of these donations to include the whole state. The Warrior Grannies have covered the GOP cost, but were almost deadlined by Paypal and the N.H. Attorney Gen. It'll be a long process but the wheels are turning. It just makes me wonder.. who's doing the counting and who's observing the counters ? Here we go again.. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 04:58 PM (#2237962) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Richard Bridge Well, is there any other candidate with plans to reform lobbying, electoral finance, propaganda mononopolies AND a falsifiable vote system? He certainly looks like the only supporter of democracy to me. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 05:12 PM (#2237966) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon Guest R.B. "The Warrior Grannies have covered the GOP cost, but were almost deadlined by Paypal and the N.H. Attorney Gen" What are you taliking about. Howard paid the fee, but not the cost of any recount. And what are "Warrior Grannies?" And, btw the AG is not any part of this process. I'll post more details on the recount process later if anyone is really interested - Tom -369- |
|
16 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM (#2237975) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon Article Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 CONCORD, N.H. (AP) _ Teams of counters have started re-counting the Democratic ballots cast in last week's New Hampshire presidential primary. They are looking first at ballots from Manchester. Secretary of State William Gardner says his office has received $27,000 from Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich to pay for the start of the re-count. Gardner said observers from campaigns and fair elections groups have the right to see and approve every ballot. Kucinich received less than 2 percent of the vote. He said he is suspicious of the results, although he doesn't expect a re-count to change his vote count much. Kucinich can stop the re-count at any time and get a refund for the balance of the costs. To re-count the entire state would cost him about $70,000. Republican Albert Howard of Michigan has asked for a re-count of the GOP primary but has not paid for it yet. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 07:28 PM (#2238072) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: bankley The Granny Warriors, is a senior citizens group, that supports Ron Paul, among other causes. They raised $55,600 for the GOP recount. Delivered the funds to Secretary of State Gardner at the very last moment, due to a Paypal freeze-out... Albert Howard accepted the receipt. Let the Games begin....... |
|
16 Jan 08 - 08:26 PM (#2238112) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon No offense intended, Bankley, but could you provide some documentation. I read hree NH papers daily, plus a biweekly, and keep the radio tuned to NHPR, and have never heard or read a word about this. I just did a Google search and found a few allegatins, but not any that I would consider to be any more than just that. Thanks - Tom -369- |
|
16 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM (#2238122) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Little Hawk bearded bruce - You said, "Yet here we have the polls off by a larger amount, and no-one has declared that Hillary is guilty of fraud..." Are you kidding??? That is EXACTLY what I am suggesting, BB...that the people backing the Clinton campaign are guilty of fraud in New Hampshire. That they stole the NH primary from Obama by getting help from certain people strategically placed to alter the results. That is what I have felt probably happened right from the getgo. And I expect there may be more such fraud before the primaries are over. Keep in mind....I favor Kucinich...but I think the primary was stolen from Obama, and I get the impression that's what Kucinich things too. Hell, it's what anyone would think, if they thought there had been voting fraud in New Hampshire. |
|
16 Jan 08 - 09:17 PM (#2238144) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon LH, I have enjoyed and admired your posts lo these many years, but I think on this one, you're lway off base. Have you read anything I've posted on this and the other NH primary thread? Even if you reversed the votes for Hillary and Obama, they would stil end up with the same number of delegates. Here is an analysis of the polling problem. The link wont work, so I am posting the article here: This just in: Pollsters were right By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM New Hampshire Sunday News Staff Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 After Hillary Clinton's surprise victory over fellow Democratic Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary, everyone was asking: How did the polls get it so wrong? They didn't, several pollsters told the New Hampshire Sunday News last week; events on the ground and last-minute deciders changed the outcome. "We didn't have a polling problem," said Dick Bennett, president of American Research Group. "We ran out of time." When ARG stopped polling at 9 p.m. on the eve of the primary, Clinton's numbers, which had dropped after Obama won the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, were heading back up, Bennett said. "We had a three-point shift in favor of her that day, and it was growing that night when we stopped." Pollsters note they weren't wrong about the rest of Tuesday's results -- including Obama's support. All the final polls showed Obama with between 35 and 40 percent of the vote -- within the margin of error for the 37 percent he ultimately tallied. And the polls were correct on the Republican side, predicting the victory of Sen. John McCain and the order of finish among the rest of the field. "Perfect storm" So it was only Clinton's numbers that changed dramatically. And by late last week, there was a growing consensus that a "perfect storm" of factors contributed to Clinton's late surge: * A rare display of emotion at a Portsmouth coffee shop on Monday showed a softer side of the candidate. * Clinton's deft handling of a Saturday night debate question about her "likability" -- and the perception among some that rivals Obama and former Sen. John Edwards were "ganging up" on her during that debate. * Springlike weather that likely contributed to a record turnout, particularly among women, who made up 57 percent of voters in the Democratic primary -- and who went for Clinton over Obama 46 to 34 percent. * Clinton campaigned hard in the final days, spending hours answering voters' questions and visiting polling places. * A barrage of late attacks on Clinton may have backfired -- like the one by two men from a Boston radio station who chanted "Iron My Shirt" during her appearance in Salem last Monday. * Some independent Obama supporters who saw his big lead in the polls may have felt free to vote for another candidate -- like Republican winner McCain. * And, finally, voter resistance to the pundits' predictions. "If you add all of those little factors together, you could probably come up with the difference between the polls and the final numbers," University of New Hampshire pollster Andy Smith said. And, Bennett suggested, "Have Hillary Clinton buy you a lottery ticket. Because she was lucky this all came together ..." Obama's softer support Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, said another overlooked factor was that polling consistently showed Clinton's support was more solid than Obama's or Edwards'. According to Rasmussen, exit polls indicated that of the 39 percent of Democratic voters who went for Clinton, more than a third made up their minds in the three days before voting. He believes many of those late deciders may have been swayed to support Obama immediately after he won the Iowa caucus, but then went back to Clinton. On Sunday evening, the UNH Survey Center found 21 percent of those they surveyed were still trying to make up their minds. "So what we were getting was a classic example of a time when a late shift, which we've seen in New Hampshire before, can have an impact," noted Smith. The only demographic change was among women, Smith said. "Sunday night, Obama was leading among women 38 to 34, and according to the exit polls, he lost among women 46 to 34." Rallying around Clinton Here's why Bennett thinks that occurred: "All you had to do was turn on the cable news networks and all they ran after the debate was (WMUR reporter Scott) Spradling's question, and all they ran after Monday was her tearing up, her emotional response. I think women said enough is enough." Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College, said she felt that herself. "I was not a Hillary supporter but I almost changed my vote just to prove (her detractors) wrong," she said. "I think there was a lot of sense among women that the press was piling on Clinton, that they were writing her political obituary." In hindsight, Fowler said, "I think the New Hampshire case was just an example of why one has to treat polls gingerly, or be more attuned to the undecideds." With lots of undecided voters, she said, "Small, trivial, late-breaking events have a disproportionate influence." Smith also noted Clinton's get-out-the-vote organization was the "best I've ever seen." "Campaigns do matter," he said. "They were able to shape the message as well as have the organization to deliver a new message and get those people to the polls." Compressed news cycle Paul Manuel, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, contends the real problem is how polls are reported in a world of 24/7 news. "You have to feed the monster, and so they'll take a poll result and distort what it's telling us," he said. But a poll is a meant to be a snapshot of a moment in time, not a prediction, he said. "In the end, what the polls told us, I think, was accurate. Hillary Clinton could have lost -- and would have lost if the election were held the day the (last) poll was taken." He believes Obama lost on the very last day of the campaign after Clinton successfully took his message of change and used it to emphasize her own experience. Some national pundits have suggested the inaccurate polling may have been caused by the so-called "Bradley effect," a reticence by white voters to tell pollsters they won't vote for a black candidate. But those interviewed here don't believe that's what happened; they noted all the surveys accurately predicted Obama's percentage of the vote. Lessons learned So what will pollsters do differently coming out of New Hampshire? Bennett said ARG will "add more questions about the likelihood of switching votes and how firm they are." Rasmussen said it was how the final polls were reported that went wrong. "On Tuesday morning, as we wrote about the final polls, we should have put more emphasis on the solid base of support for Clinton and more emphasis on the fact that the trend was moving back in her direction. So we'll try and be a little more cautious on that." And Scott Keeter, director of survey research for the Pew Research Center, said survey organizations may add questions going into the South Carolina primary to try to tease out a possible race factor. Despite all the criticism last week about voter surveys, Smith said the campaigns, the media and the public all want them. "It would be like going to a baseball game and not knowing what the score is -- even though you know the score in the fifth inning is not what matters; it's the score at the end of the game." |
|
17 Jan 08 - 02:53 AM (#2238232) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Richard Bridge Ah, the benefit of hindsight... |
|
17 Jan 08 - 06:52 AM (#2238290) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon Hindsight? From my post of 7 January, the day before the primary: "But speaking as a native with 65 + years of experience and participation, I would offer some cautions. New Hampshire is currently being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Once a bastion of staunch Republican conservatism, the stae is experiencing a Renaissance of humanity and civilisation. It is therefore, not that predictable. The short time lapse since Iowa means that polls will not be that reflective of the true intent of the voters until tomorrow morning. Many Granite Staters take a perverse delight in lying to pollsters. 30% of the electorate is still favoring "Undecided." - Tom -368- |
|
17 Jan 08 - 09:56 AM (#2238385) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: bankley no offense taken, curmudgeon.. I was just happening to be listening to Alex Jones' talk-radio show out of Austin, TX. A Granny Warrior spokesperson called in from NH explaining the situation. Also, Kucinich was on for a short interview, giving his 'take' on it. You can hear that interview, access Mr. Jones daily radio show, and read about a lot of interesting things that normally don't make it to the 'mainstream', at prisonplanet.com. also more about the grannies at grannywarrior.chipin.com I hope this helps to round out your info intake... |
|
17 Jan 08 - 11:15 AM (#2238446) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Little Hawk You may be right, curmudgeon. There are many possibilities. I just have a gut feeling that the Clinton machine, which I think is the machine with the most connections in the Democratic party heirarchy, is inclined toward very corrupt tactics, and I think we are going to see some really odd stuff being done by them during this campaign, and that not all of it will be aboveboard. Keep in mind that on a personal level I've always rather liked Hillary Clinton, so my views on this are not colored by a personal hatred of her...as is so often the case with those who attack her campaign. To the contrary, it's not that I don't like her...I don't like the machine that chose her and is backing her as their favored candidate. I think it's a rotten political machine through and through...about as rotten as the Bush machine (though not as crazy). I think that they were very perturbed at the possibility of Obama eclipsing Hillary Clinton this early in the primaries, and that they started going through their bag of dirty tricks to see what they could possibly do to avoid that happening. They scrambled, in other words, to do everything they could think of through the media in the last couple of days in New Hampshire to turn it around. They probably planted those guys in the crowd who yelled, "Iron my shirt!" in order to generate an angry sympathy vote for Hillary. I mean, hell, it's just too damned convenient when stuff like that happens. And then they made sure that the press would get the story out to as many people as possible. Same possibility with the "tearing up" episode...quite possibly planned and set up and then covered for maximum effect. That sort of thing is done. There are highly paid consultants who dream up all this kind of dramatic nonsense in order to manipulate public response and affect people's voting. They also sift through every word that another candidate ever says in order to find something, anything they can twist or quote out of context in order to get people to think badly of him or her. It's a game...a very dirty game...and a game that's played for the highest stakes, so it attracts some pretty sharp and ruthless players. I smell a rat in New Hampshire. Maybe vote fraud...maybe not...maybe other kinds of manipulation done through the media. I may be mistaken. But it is a definite possibility, that's all. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 01:25 PM (#2238573) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon For a closer look at the recount in progress, go here. Audio may be available later - Tom -368- |
|
17 Jan 08 - 07:17 PM (#2238852) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: McGrath of Harlow It seems pretty self-evident that when an election result is wildly out of lone with public opinion polls or exit polls, and where there is a major difference between results in places where the votes are registered or counted counted electronically or manually, there ought to be a recount and a serious look at what happened, to make sure that its been a fair election. That should happen regardless of whether any candidates want it to happen or not. Making sure that elections are clean is more important than what the actual result might turn out to be. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 10:19 PM (#2238960) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Good point. And hopefully, that's what the primary result of this recount will be. This is what Democracy is supposed to look like. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 03:19 AM (#2239025) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: mg I smell a rat too..and oh goodness we didn't hear about it on NPR. Well, gee. There will be so many rats crawling out of the woodwork in this election if she is the nominee..or I guess also if she isn't. What is America thinking? mg |
|
18 Jan 08 - 08:59 AM (#2239165) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon Here's |
|
18 Jan 08 - 09:00 AM (#2239166) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: curmudgeon ..another look at the recount process - Tom -367- |
|
18 Jan 08 - 09:37 AM (#2239199) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: GUEST,realistic Keep one thing in mind, this is a primary, NOT a presidential election. The process only serves as a poll by the democratic party to help them determine who they will nominate for president. They can nominate the candidate who got 2% of the votes if they choose, there are no legal requirements here. They will, as a rule, nominate the person who got the most votes because that is in their best interest, but it is totally up to them. Just because they ask the peoples' opinions does not require them to honor those opinions. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 12:14 PM (#2239314) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Nevertheless, it will be instructive to see if and to what extent the voting process is compromised. Better to get it out of the way during the primaries than wait till the general election. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 01:33 PM (#2239363) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Looks like what we're learning is that even if we recount the votes, the 'chain of custody' issue is equally as important as the counting of votes, and something looks pretty fishy about the chain of custody in New Hampshire... "No worries, say New Hampshire officials when cuts up to eight inches long are spotted in newly delivered ballot boxes. "The only seal that counts is the one on top." Except the seal on top can be peeled off without leaving a trace, then reaffixed. Black Box Voting has been doing a chain of custody exam for the New Hampshire Primary's recount. On Wednesday night, Election Defense Alliance's Sally Castleman mentioned a troubling observation: After following the ballots back to the ballot vault following Wednesday's recount, she had the opportunity to enter the ballot vault, and noticed what looked like cuts, or slits, in the side of many ballot boxes. New Hampshire officials assured us that these cuts, which slice through the tape and seals do not permit access to the uncounted ballots, pointing to a label on the boxtop which they call a seal. But the "seal" can be removed, like a Post-it, and reaffixed. So it's not a seal all! We wanted to know if the ballot boxes were slit while in the vault, in the transport van, or came from the towns with slits in them. I confirmed this morning that many if not most of the boxes scheduled to be counted today had slits in them. I went out when a vanload of ballots arrived, and saw that they were slit at the time they arrived by van. Susan Pynchon and I drove to two nearby towns and watched as they handed over their ballot boxes to "Butch and Hoppy", the two men who drive around in the state in a van picking the ballots up. We observed as they loaded boxes of ballots into the van with no slits at all in them. We videotaped each of these up close. They arrived at the destination without slits. The label on the top was affixed, but in some cases was crumpled, or also damaged. Of cource, the label affixed to the top can be removed and reattached without telltale signs." http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71404.html If we want to be confident in the results of our elections, we're going to need to have better accountability in the way the ballots are handled, along with verifiability in the form of a paper trail. I think the best method would be to have a system in which the voter gets a printed receipt when he or she casts a vote, so that even if there is any tampering of the ballots as they are being handled, there will be a separate paper trail in the custody of the voters that could be used as a reference during recounts. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 01:39 PM (#2239366) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri I live here and had access to local news as well as that cable news channels as the primary played out. What I saw was a bunch of people relying on non-scientific polls to make predictions. Sure, they should get you in the ballpark, but you can't rely on them and claim they're good for much beyond making guesses more reliable than, say, throwing darts at a chart with candidate names. (Totally not legal if you can actually hit what you aim at.) I make guesses, but I know that's all they are and when things don't come out the way I thought they would, I don't have a problem saying I was wrong. If you get too invested in you're predictions, you wind up desperately trying to prove you were right after all, no matter what sort of spinning and fact massacring you have to do. I doubt anyone bothered to read the article that Tom posted. Usually, the first and most obvious reason is the right one. Not all the time, but usually. 'If it looks like a duck...' etc. I also know that some folks are just fond of conspiracy theories, no matter what mundane explanations make more sense. Nobody's going to change that. I also know that to some, the majority of people in the world can't be trusted and will lie, cheat, and steal to make things come out the way they want. There ARE people that bad in the world, but you get a different perspective on the accusations and cynicism when it's your home. When people accuse such an enormous number of people of conspiring to throw an election, they're accusing me, you and the majority of people of being crooked. I don't know about you, but I don't like people saying that about me. As to the original counting, the town count and report to the state. The numbers are available to everyone, and it would be simple for the town counters to say, "Hey, that's NOT what we reported." If people are like me, they usually go check out what their town did. There could be minor problems with the machines, but I don't believe they would affect the numbers significantly. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 01:45 PM (#2239369) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Little Hawk The idea of a printed receipt with which the voter can prove how they voted is an excellent one, Carol. Voting fraud is an old, old story in the USA as well as in many other countries. In the time of Tammany Hall, for instance, there were outrageous frauds perpetrated. First of all, people were bribed with drink and other inducements to vote for certain candidates favored by the ruling political machine in New York City at the time. On top of that, people were beaten and intimidated into not voting for other candidates. On top of that, the same individuals often voted several times, superficially altering their appearance by shaving off facial hair or wearing different clothes and then returning to vote AGAIN on the same day. As time went by, of course, new laws were passed to make it more difficult to get away with such forms of fraud...so the fraud continued, but in some more clever or subtle fashion. Is there voting fraud occurring now? You bet there is. Ways will be found, I assure you, because the stakes are very high, and it's all about money and power. Any system can be cheated by those who have the money and the will to cheat it...and there must be constant vigilance against that sort of thing. Slits cut in the sides of ballot boxes? That's a dead giveaway. There's no way that a ballot box can be fully trusted if it has been compromised in that fashion. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 01:48 PM (#2239373) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Here's a subsequent post from Bev Harris on the subject of how the ballots are being handled. I have to say, the behavior she describes certainly looks like that of people who have something to hide (from the same link as before)... "Writing this last night, I was quite tired. I will post photos - the slits are not "through the box" in the sense that they are in the middle of the cardboard. They deliver the ballots in a variety of cardboard boxes. The lid of the cardboard box is taped and has various seals on it, some old, from using the box before, some new. The slits cut through any tape or seals. They don't cut into the cardboard itself, and I'm going to edit the post above to clarify that. The other thing that isn't clear from the above post is the timing. The normal procedure has been: - bring the incoming ballot boxes into the front door of the building - roll them through the counting room, which is a large room similar to a library reference room - from there to roll the cart containing the incoming ballot boxes through the back door of the counting room - insert key card into the warehouse area door - roll the ballots down the hall in the warehouse - open the ballot "vault" door with a key (it is a sturdy metal door but opens with a single key) - put the incoming ballots in the vault - When they will be counted, take them from the vault back into the counting room. 1. We noticed the slits in the vault and confirmed when they brought the ballots out that the slits were still there. 2. Then we looked at the ballot boxes as they were being delivered. Those, too, had slits. 3. Then we visited towns that had ballots scheduled for pickup. We had time to visit only two towns. Both towns had ballot boxes with no slits. 4. While at these towns, we waited for the pickup van to show up. When it did, we videotaped the ballot boxes already in it. 5. When we got back to the archive building where they were having the recount, we awaited the van with the ballot boxes we just videotaped. We waited quite a while. Almost everyone left, the recount ended for the day, and still no van. The van finally pulled in after all but a couple observers had gone home. We videotaped what came out of the van. It was in the same condition as what we videotaped at the towns. Of course, Butch and Hoppy knew we had been taking videotape because we did it right in front of them. What they did last night, with the incoming batch that we had photographed in the field, was roll them into the counting room. We waited. The handful of officials waited. These officials included Secretary of State Bill Gardner, Head of the Archive building Frank Mevers, Assistant secretary of state David Scanlan, Ballot transport drivers "Butch and Hoppy" (whose names are really Armand and Peter); Kucinich representatives Manny and Pat, a secretary of state assistant named, I think, Karen Hand. They waited. We waited. It was very odd, to me at least. The ballots were sitting in the middle of the counting room, all these officials were standing around talking quietly with each other. I assumed they were waiting for something, results sheets perhaps. I decided to stay with video ready until the ballots were wheeled back to the vault. One of the transport guys, "Hoppy" I think, then said that the ballots would not be taken to the vault that night because it was "closed" -- implying that whoever had the key was no longer there. Frank Mevers had the key. But I saw Frank Mevers. And the ballots had been moved to the vault even later the night before, because counting teams had stayed and counted up until about 7 pm. So Sally and I waited. They affixed one of these post-it peelable labels on each front door and said everyone will leave out the back door and the order was given for all to leave. We filed out the back door. I asked Secretary of State Bill Gardner why there was a change in procedure. He did not answer. I asked him again. After about three tries, he just said "it's secure." The handful of officials and the two Kucinich people hung around the back door. I asked more questions about why the ballots were being left in a room with no key card. They put one of the label stickers over the door and said "it's secure." I continued to wait with this small group of people. Finally they told us to leave and everyone left the building. We got in our car and drove a ways away. Most of the people left. Bill Gardner and Anthony Stevens stayed around for a while, standing outside the loading bay talking. Then they left. The upshot: The ballots we had videotaped in the van being transported, which arrived intact without slits, were not taken to the vault and were not kept in a location requiring keycard access last night (except that entering the building itself requires a keycard) * * * * * To put my concerns about this in context: Paddy Shaffer and I arrived at the archive building on Tuesday afternoon prepared to videotape incoming ballots as they came in that afternoon and throughout the night. We were told the (in my opinion) contrived story that no videotaping would be permitted because mental patients from a hospital about a block away might wander into the parking lot/loading area. We made a point of pressuring Bill Gardner to have this ban lifted. They had clearly been planning for ballots to begin arriving Tuesday. I asked Frank Mevers, head of the archive building, if he could walk us through the observation area where the ballot intake process would take place. At that point he went into the back, had a long phone call, and came out saying they wouldn't be delivering the ballots that night." |
|
18 Jan 08 - 01:57 PM (#2239380) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC I note that the term 'conspiracy theory' has been invoked in this thread. This term has become the standard ad hominem attack (as well as smear tactic) of those who are either trying to stifle debate, or to suppress investigations. It is, nevertheless, not an argument. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM (#2239388) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: beardedbruce "Bruce, Hillary isn't already in office and this is a primary, not an election." So the level of fraud that is "definite proof" in convicting Bush is not applicable??? LH, MY comment was that there is a double standard here, in that Clinton gets away with numbers that were "definite proof" that Bush had stolen the election. It is the double standard that I am pointing to, not the actual fraud- I DO NOT KNOW if the models used are accurate or not in these predictions, only that those here who criticise Bush are strangely silent when a Democrat does the same thing. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM (#2239548) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Little Hawk Oh, some of them are, BB. Yes. They use a double standard. I have no difficulty criticizing Democrats, and noting evidences of Democratic corruption....but I'm sure some people here do, because they are very partisan, and they only wish to go after Republican targets. That's their prejudice. Then there are other individuals who only seem to criticize Democrats and they overlook Republican misdeeds. DougR has a bit of a problem that way, I think, although Doug is certainly a gentleman...but he's very partisan. I think both those parties are corrupt and rotten, and they both probably engage in fraud quite frequently. (whenever they figure they can get away with it) |
|
18 Jan 08 - 06:06 PM (#2239597) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: PoppaGator I'm pretty sure that the NH primary was NOT a winner-take-all affair. Each party designates a certain number of delegates per state, elected by district. Hillary's plurality of the statewide vote does not mean that she gets all the NH delegates to the convention pledged to her. In fact, Obama actualy had more delegates than she did at one point late in the evening, despite trailing in the statewide totals. That would be because he won more districts. The overall popular vote is important for public relations, as a factor in the ongoing campaign. But as far as pledged votes toward the eventual nomination, candidiates who finished reasonalbly close to the lead and to each other, in both parties, came out fairly close to even in the contest for delegates, which is what will eventually decide both nominations. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 06:13 PM (#2239605) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri Clinton got 11 delegates Obama got 12 Edwards got 4 3 are unpledged |
|
18 Jan 08 - 07:57 PM (#2239683) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: beardedbruce "Clinton got 11 delegates Obama got 12" And Clinton WON??? No wonder the Democrats can't win an election- they cannot even count! |
|
18 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM (#2239691) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri Bruce, go try to figure out why BEFORE you step in it. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 08:14 PM (#2239696) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: bankley sounds like some 3rd world country trying to have their first ever elections... where's Jimmy Carter to watch over it ? |
|
18 Jan 08 - 08:40 PM (#2239713) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Little Hawk Jeri - When you say that a candidate got so and so many delegates from a given state...does that mean that those delegates will and must vote for that candidate at the party's leadership convention? Or is it optional? |
|
18 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM (#2239724) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: Jeri I don't believe there's anything, other than integrity and reputation, binding delegates to a candidate. If someone pulls out of the race, their delegates will wind up voting for another candidate. I don't remember hearing about delegates just switching teams on their own, but there are other folks here who'd know far more than I know about this. Oh yeah - I don't really understand how Obama ended up getting more delegates than Clinton, but I didn't say anyone was stupid. |
|
18 Jan 08 - 11:07 PM (#2239777) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC More cloak and dagger in New Hampshire (from the same link as before)... From Bev Harris: "I think it will be helpful to get photographs or video of the ballots WHILE STILL AT TOWN CLERK OFFICES and it will also be very helpful for citizens to follow "Butch and Hoppy". Yesterday when we did so, they were speeding at one point and we were fairly challenged to keep up with them. We did, thanks to the skillful driving of Susan Pynchon. There was a dark green SUV waiting for them in a rural location. They stopped, one of the transport team jumped out, went to the driver of the green SUV, said something, then the transport team headed one direction and the green SUV the other. Clearly, he had been waiting there to hook up with the transport team. There may be a perfectly logical explanation for this, but I think it is important to witness and/or video where the transport van goes and who they meet up with. Here on this site, it was posted that the ballots in New Hampshire are transported by the state police. That is incorrect. I asked more questions and they said that a liason from the sec. state office accompanies the state police. That is not true. Here's what is true: "Butch and Hoppy" who are represented as working for the secretary of state or the archives, depending on who you are talking to, pick up ALL the ballots in New Hampshire. They drive a white state van. A single member of the state police drives behind them. He can't see a darn thing about what is going on in that van. Chain of custody - This isn't "the New Hampshire state police" moving the ballots. In fact, I'm not sure the Butch and Hoppy Show is legal, if the law says the ballots will be moved by the state police. The chain of custody during transport is two guys named Butch and Hoppy. That's it. My antennas would be up now for: 1) Ballot chain of custody, rendezvous points, capturing evidence of what goes into the transportation pipeline and what comes out. 2) I expect there will be efforts to persuade candidates to shortcut their recounts. ALSO: Note that Republican ballots have been being transported with Democrat ballots, that they are sometimes in the same box, and that as the Democrats do their recount the Republican ballots are being unsealed with no witness from the Republican campaign. They are taped up before going back to the ballot vault, but last night, Republican ballots were stored outside the vault just as Democrat ballots were." |
|
23 Jan 08 - 01:36 AM (#2242583) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Update on the investigation into the lack of a chain of custody in the New Hampshire recount... http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71456.html?1201055989 I was particularly interested to read about the differences between the way things are done in New Hampshire and the way they're done in some other places, including West Virginia, California, and Canada. I'm confident that it's possible to adopt a uniform protocol for the whole country that can significantly increase the security of our elections processes. All that's needed is enough people who prefer to live in a democracy rather than a kleptocracy getting involved in pressuring the system to make the needed changes. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:18 PM (#2248359) Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux From: CarolC Here's a video of the evidence found showing the lack of a chain of custody in the New Hampshire recount... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHL_YMBolRs |