Recount in NH requested!
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Why do I feel like we've been here before? Oh, we have:
Desh, will you accept the results when they come in?
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413
Desh, will you accept the results when they come in?
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413
LOL.
I'm wondering exactly, Why? As far as I can tell the results matched the exit polls (well within their margin of error), the same thing I have been told about a zillion times that are used "around the world" to show the validity of the vote. It seems the validity of the vote has nothing to do with it when the results weren't what you wanted to see. I guess when the Exit Polls and the votes match, we go to polls that are not used to verify results around the world and question the validity of the vote that was taken, counted and verified with the exit Polls....
Sheeeeesh!
I'm wondering exactly, Why? As far as I can tell the results matched the exit polls (well within their margin of error), the same thing I have been told about a zillion times that are used "around the world" to show the validity of the vote. It seems the validity of the vote has nothing to do with it when the results weren't what you wanted to see. I guess when the Exit Polls and the votes match, we go to polls that are not used to verify results around the world and question the validity of the vote that was taken, counted and verified with the exit Polls....
Sheeeeesh!
evince
Truthmatters
How is it different? It's the same system, Diebold AccuVote. We've been through this before Desh. Quit crying wolf.
okay, if Kucinich wants to make a statement about all the votes being counted, I'm fine with that. Someone keeping a watchful eye on our Democracy is always a good thing.
I still think Hillary won fair and square. I think we sometimes get wrapped up with electronic voting stuff, but I think that's largely a ruse for the real danger to democracy. Dangers, like more low tech weapons like voter caging, voter intimidation, dirty tricks, and voter suppression.
And I didn't see or hear about any evidence of those low tech weapons being deployed on Tuesday.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Waiting on CK to call Kucinich a Lieberman Dem....
I read this report over at bradblog (a friend emailed it to me and asked me to please look at it). And it indicates that 80% of the precincts were counted using Diebold scanners, and 20% of them were hand-counted. And in the 20% which were handcounted Obama was up by approx 5 points, and in the 80% which were counted by Diebold scanners, Hillary was up by approx 5 points.
Any idea of that’s true, and if so, why it might be?
It isn't different. The result was well within the margin of error of the exit polling data. In any other race on the planet you would believe those results to be valid based on that one fact alone.
It is only in this one you want to pretend that pre-polling is valid and we should question the vote?
Come on, stay consistent.
I realize you don't like the machines. Nor do I, in fact, like those machines. However, the validity of the vote seemed to be fully in line with the exit polling data. There is no evidence whatsoever of foul play here.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'd like to see a total recount to test the accuracy of the Diebold system. I also think Hillary cheated, nt by tinkering with the machine but by flooding the polls with voters from Massachusetts and Vermont.
Interesting. How would you check that?
It may very well be true. As to why that might be, the larger towns and more urban areas in New Hampshire (more urban, clearly, is a relative term) use the optical scanners. As a result, you a whole hell of a lot more votes in the Diebold districts, over 230,000 of the 280,000 total votes were counted using the Diebold scanners. So is it really all that odd for the person who won overall to win among 80% of the total? Not really.
There's a lot more and a lot of people more knowledgeable than me have written about it. In particular you may want to check out the link below:
http://dhinmi.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176
and this one
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/14143/09482/505/433764
I think you anally rape cats and have about as much support for my assertion as you do for yours.
Wow, it is scary when I agree with dailykos... Maybe I'd better rethink.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Paper trail?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What makes you say that?
You would be unable to verify which ballot was cast by whom as ballots are secret and do not associate to the "trail".
If people came from Mass. or elsewhere the "paper trail" would be inadequate. The only place to check that is at the polls themselves.
Thanks DH, I’m going to email this to my friend. It’s interesting reading and they make a convincing case. I wish I knew enough about NH to know, but I don’t. My impression of Markos is that he is a Democrat come hell or high water, and deeply invested in the Democratic party, but I don’t read that site, so I might be wrong. And I know nothing about the Brad Blog either way.
I just don’t see this as having happened, but I hate to dismiss it out of hand only because I saw so many people do that, and who still do it, about Florida 2000.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
None of the low-tech methods pose anywhere near the danger that electronic voting does .. particularly when right-wing two brothers own two different companies that counts more than 80% of the vote in America.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I was referring to the paper tape copy that spits out of the back of the machine. If a hand total doesn't match the electronic tally then there's a problem with that machine. I'm not sure if that's how the machines work but in my mind that type of record should be a bare minimum requirement.
With regards to who was given access to use the machine, there's not much that can be done after the vote. It's up to the poll workers, who should be evenly split between parties, to ensure only registered voters vote, and only vote once.
My understanding is that people can register to vote in NH as ate as the day before an election, and do not need proof of address. That's an obvious flaw in their system and opens up the possibility of Hillary's people in neighboring States to vote there. There's no doubt in my mind that's exactly what happened to put her over the top. Of course other candidates supporters probably did the same thing, especially Obama's college student following.