Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Diebold disparities appear in NH recount
gnn.tv — In Hillsborough County, Clinton gained 675 votes – a jump of more than 2 percent. The media isn’t reporting anything, or else claiming no problems were found. And the official Web page for the recount seems to be having ongoing technical difficulties. Hooray for democracy.
Beagle17- 1655 diggs
- digg it
- gabeh73, on 01/21/2008, -56/+6they don't know where the votes went? hmmmm can you say "Ron Paul"?
- mcool119, on 01/21/2008, -1/+23I can, but I'm not sure how that has anything to do with where the votes went.
- pintomp3, on 01/21/2008, -0/+10this is for the democratic primary, *****. registered democrats couldn't cast ballots for the republican primary.
- WilliamDavis, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2I think Paul did actually pick up votes during the democratic recount. Go look for yourself.
- bannus, on 01/21/2008, -8/+12What is needed for a "fair (democratic) election" to actually take place?! I hope when Obama says he's gonna change things, he really means it. We probably need a total rehaul of our government bureaucracies, and I hope this time it doesn't take a catastrophic stock market crash to ignite this change.
- OldJesser, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4Actually, in the article it mentions that Obama also lost votes after the recount. It might not mean he has anything to do with it, but someone apparently wants to steal votes for him. I like what the guy says, but many people also like what Bush said in his first election (which is the polar opposite of what he did once in office).
- Kerrigore, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Did any of you actually bother to add up the individual discrepancies from each town? If you had, you might realize that they don't add up to ~600 votes, or anything even close. But no, I guess careful consideration is too much to ask for. It's way easier to just ignore the part about Weare not being done and just skip to the totals and come to false conclusions.
- CPoe, on 01/21/2008, -1/+8lol, we're gettin a "catastrophic stock market crash" whether we need it or not.
- PhilLesh69, on 01/21/2008, -4/+12If you really believe that Obama is going to change anything, you need to keep reading history and look at how he has become a presidential candidate.
He launched his US Senate campaign in 2003, and after giving the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, he became a "national figure".
Obama was appointed. He was chosen for the purpose of being another establishment candidate if the voters get all uppity and try to vote in a candidate who actually wants to truly change things. Candidates like Ron Paul, who really want to change things are painted as crazy, or racist, or marginalized and ignored.
The candidate the media ignores and the other politicians describe as crazy are the ones we should all be voting for. That only means they are the ones not working for the established interests, they are the candidates who threaten the status quou, and will undermine all of the corrupt systems and people who control our nation.
When the owners of our country fear someone, they do everything to keep them from having a chance in our national elections. - davidave, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2he "really means it"? that's about the most optimistic assessment of a politician i have ever seen
- OldJesser, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4Actually, in the article it mentions that Obama also lost votes after the recount. It might not mean he has anything to do with it, but someone apparently wants to steal votes for him. I like what the guy says, but many people also like what Bush said in his first election (which is the polar opposite of what he did once in office).
- p0ss, on 01/21/2008, -2/+28looking at the google cache of the official page, it seems that every major candidate lost votes in the recount.
at a glance the biggest discrepency i could see was hillary losing 71 votes in Nashua Ward 5. . thats 6.9% of that ward.
and resealable balot box seals? wth?- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9A quick check on the accuracy of votes is to make sure the total votes counted actually match the total number of voters in each polling place. Accounting 101. They don't seem to have even done that.
- laterthandawn, on 01/21/2008, -0/+12Exactly. I wish people would drop the "Clinton stole the election from Obama" stuff. Clinton and Obama have both lost around 670 votes each thus far...so, it certainly would seem that Obama's in the same boat she is.
The really, really bad news/big story is that the vote is generally off all over the place. Maybe not enough to effect the outcome here, but where the hell did all those discrepancies come from? And what does it mean for future (and past, actually) elections? Those are the questions I'd like answered...not "how did Clinton steal this from Obama?" - PhilLesh69, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2But that doesn't really mean anything. Sure, if there were 1,001 votes with only 1,000 voters, that means there was fraud. However, unless we have "dual auditing" of our votes, something banks have had for years, we don't ever know how many people voted for candidate A and how many voted for candidate B.
Especially with electronic balloting. It is so easy to manipulate the votes, based on the total number of votes, so that the candidate you want to win gets more votes, within the total number of votes.
Princeton and UCLA computer scientists have already demonstrated how easy it is to do this.
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/videos.html - probablyhigh, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Anyone else just picture Chris Farley in Black Sheep?
- laterthandawn, on 01/21/2008, -0/+12Exactly. I wish people would drop the "Clinton stole the election from Obama" stuff. Clinton and Obama have both lost around 670 votes each thus far...so, it certainly would seem that Obama's in the same boat she is.
- wraptor347, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7If you read the red lettering at the top of the page you would know that they haven't tallied Weare county's votes yet which accounts for the 630 vote disparity from the original and recount totals. Same thing for Obama and Edwards. It's really not that complicated, people should examine the evidence themselves before screaming about the sky falling.
- Kerrigore, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Not to mention the fact that if you add up all the gains and losses for each candidate in the tallied count's, it doesn't add up to anything like a 630 vote loss. Most of the gains or losses are by 5 votes or less, usually only one or two.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9A quick check on the accuracy of votes is to make sure the total votes counted actually match the total number of voters in each polling place. Accounting 101. They don't seem to have even done that.
- mcool119, on 01/21/2008, -3/+15Seems like all the democrats lost votes, and all the republicans gained votes... wtf?
- frontporsche, on 01/21/2008, -1/+14These are Democrat ballots, so the "Republican" votes are all write-in votes. It makes sense that a hand count would be less likely to just mark the write-in votes as "other".
- PhilLesh69, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2This isn't a national election. This is party primaries. This isn't a rehash of Florida in 2000.
THe democrat candidates are not competing against republican candidates. They are competing against each other to become the democratic nominee.- mcool119, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1I wasn't saying they were, I was just pointing out the trend.
- acrodev, on 01/21/2008, -1/+28This is Democracy, Inc.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3It's a hostile takeover!
- PhilLesh69, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Not hostile. Silent takeover.
- TheImmigrant, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Blackwater?
- PhilLesh69, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Not hostile. Silent takeover.
- Kakemonster, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2It's US Democracy, Inc. Don't give democracy a bad name just cause you fail at it.
- acrodev, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1If you believe the reach of multinational corporations stops at the border, you are misinformed.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3It's a hostile takeover!
- desistere, on 01/21/2008, -0/+37Here's the official recount (currently only Democratic and the votes for Weare are not yet available).
http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm
There are some large discrepancies numbering between 70-100 votes in districts. The article points out that there's a 600+ vote discrepancy in Hillsborough county for Mrs. Clinton.- OldJesser, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Interesting, it's not showing a discrepancy of that magnitude now. Still, there are a couple areas where her results are questionable.
- trvr, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Yes it is. Look at Hillary's totals (or Edwards' or Obama's, for that matter). there are two totals for each candidate (the first results and the recount). They have all lost votes so far.
- trvr, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Yes it is. Look at Hillary's totals (or Edwards' or Obama's, for that matter). there are two totals for each candidate (the first results and the recount). They have all lost votes so far.
- d03boy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5WEARE county is not finished! THAT is where the discrepancy is coming from.
- nittanylion06, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Obama had an extra 679 votes in Hillsborough, Clinton had 675 extra.
- nittanylion06, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Bah n/m, d03boy is right, the vote totals are wrong for both candidates.
- Zephkiel, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Obama had 579 extra votes, you mean.
- OldJesser, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Interesting, it's not showing a discrepancy of that magnitude now. Still, there are a couple areas where her results are questionable.
- banq59, on 01/21/2008, -2/+47Wow you wouldn't think it would be so hard to accurately and fairly hold an election.
- Arth718, on 01/21/2008, -1/+21This is in a small state like New Hampshire too. Imagine the amount of people in California if votes get ***** up.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -14/+2Most of this is likely due to VOTER error. Not machine error. And it CLEARLY shows that it was not fraud.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -8/+1Why on earth would I be getting buried for this? Both statements are absolute facts. The discrepancies are likely to due to ballots that were not properly filled out. And since it clearly did not show a huge advantage given to one candidate, it very clearly eliminates fraud as a reason for it to have occurred.
- marillion, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4I think the big fallacy that we all live with is that a vote counter (human or machine or monkeys) can always determine the intent of the voter from his voting record. If a mark is clearly in a box then it's ... well ... clear. If a mark is not clear, then what? Any of the choices you have runs counter to the spirit of "Every Vote Counts."
- floorman56, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1You would think people could balance there check books too
- ml7667, on 01/21/2008, -1/+39I live in Hillsborough County (Nashua, NH) and I'm pretty ashamed in my state right now
- d03boy, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2You shouldn't be just yet because the counts are not all in. WEARE precinct still has not been counted! Thats about 650 votes there.
- eFiniTi, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I live in South Carolina where Ron Paul only got 4% of the vote while Huckabee got 30%. Imagine how I feel..
- EXreaction, on 01/21/2008, -9/+5Ya, ya, I've only heard it like ten times. Tell me again when they are done with the republican recount.
- trenchcoat, on 01/21/2008, -6/+9You got to love a site when one of their own writers leaves the following comment...
"Here is a video that shows the stinking corruption in US politics. Never trust an American – they are all corrupt liars, perverts and either jews or controlled by jews."- imikedaman, on 01/21/2008, -12/+9It's actually getting pretty pathetic how many editorials from unverified and untrusted websites appear on digg as gospel. Bunch of conspiracy theory loonies we're all turning out to be.
The Diebold machines ended up being a lot more accurate than anyone predicted, and they had no adverse effects on the outcome of the polls. Clinton won fair and square.- obliviousfool, on 01/21/2008, -5/+10More accurate than anyone predicted? Um, no. First of all, the polls predicted a different result. All of them. Secondly, you should be able to count the things thousands of times and always get the same result. That would be accurate. I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think accurate is the word you're looking for!
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -12/+5The point is, moron, that all you whiny bitches all said the reocunt was going to show MUCH bigger discrepancies than it turned out to show. Your implication was that it was going to prove intentional fraud to steal an election. And it clearly did not show that.
- Jubalicious, on 01/21/2008, -2/+9No, the actual point is that elections should be fair and open and each time you count votes the count is the same. We all have the right for our vote to count.
I don't understand why you are getting dug up. - Vash265, on 01/21/2008, -3/+3There is absolutely, 100% no way that any election will be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Mistakes happen, votes get shuffled around, counts get misconstrued, quite often unintentionally. It may not be a reality you like, but it IS reality.
- imikedaman, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2@Jubalicious:
Actually, he was referring to and explaining my point, which was that the machines were a lot more accurate than anyone expected. It's unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy with anything, unfortunately, and being bitter about that harsh reality won't solve anything. - bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -6/+4jubalicious...You can't account for HUMAN ERROR. Circles not filled in properly, extra marks all over the ballot, etc.
This recount shows that there is no need to worry. Normal statistical errors will result in no real advantage given, as the discrepancies are around 1% at most. And when a race is that close, an automatic recount is triggered.
- Jubalicious, on 01/21/2008, -2/+9No, the actual point is that elections should be fair and open and each time you count votes the count is the same. We all have the right for our vote to count.
- Elliuotatar, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3Just because the Diebold machines did not show a preference for one democrat over another doesn't mean they're not programmed to show a preference for republicans over democrats. Doing this recount now was a terrible idea, because people will now assume the machines are accurate for the general election which is what really counts.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -12/+5The point is, moron, that all you whiny bitches all said the reocunt was going to show MUCH bigger discrepancies than it turned out to show. Your implication was that it was going to prove intentional fraud to steal an election. And it clearly did not show that.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5So far not a single candidates totals are even close to what diebold said they were. That is the opposite of accurate.
And plus the fact that the recount just started so you can't thus far make any claims about the state yet.
- obliviousfool, on 01/21/2008, -5/+10More accurate than anyone predicted? Um, no. First of all, the polls predicted a different result. All of them. Secondly, you should be able to count the things thousands of times and always get the same result. That would be accurate. I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think accurate is the word you're looking for!
- TheG2, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8This is Digg, logic need not apply. Sadly.
- imikedaman, on 01/21/2008, -12/+9It's actually getting pretty pathetic how many editorials from unverified and untrusted websites appear on digg as gospel. Bunch of conspiracy theory loonies we're all turning out to be.
- mistergoodburge, on 01/21/2008, -6/+13isnt digg.com geared for young adults and teenagers? so when i see all this crap about the news and elections and ron paul and then i look at last election when that whole vote or die was a bust i wonder do you guys really give a ***** about the governement? try not to make the same mistake again young people and actually vote this time around
- trvr, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7Not to sound stupid, but I feel that a lot has changed in 4 years. Furthermore, us Diggers aren't the MTV/Diddy (P-Diddy, w/e) crowd. Young people caucused in Iowa, we'll see if we can continue that nation-wide.
- bobodew, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2I have to concur. I've voted in the last two years elections here and being just a tad over 30....I still felt like I was the youngest there by a couple of decades....and I live in young area !?! With that I've personally NEVER seen an election official/volunteer under 65.
- holzp, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Hold on there Sonny, I was posting on the internet back when our porn was ASCII and you still had time to get a Shasta before it finished downloading.
- crapmatic, on 01/21/2008, -0/+57"resealable ballot-box seals".... holy hell, I had to read that twice to believe it.
- youreh, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3why are all the counts lower than the originals? (obama's, edward's, and clinton's all have lower counts in the recount on the page linked to.)
- d03boy, on 01/21/2008, -3/+1Because the count is not finished! check out WEARE county
- harlowsmonkeys, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Statisticians look at the results from New Hampshire:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/arc ... - Drakkor, on 01/21/2008, -6/+8Everybody should just admit that this govmint is a sham and actually do something about it ? Maybe they will after losing their houses and with the dollar going down the toilet,maybe somebody will wake up !!!
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -8/+3Except the recounts don't back up your silliness. It proves that there was NO fraud at all.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2Again...I post an obvious FACT and get buried.
Explain to me, Drakkor, why someone would go through all the trouble to vommit voting fraud just to change a few voete here and there, not affecting the outcome at all? - winmywii, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2He didn't say anything about vote fraud. he said the government is a sham and that we are going to lose our houses.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2Again...I post an obvious FACT and get buried.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Happens all the time, the press calls them "disgruntled."
- Navicerts, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1talk talk talk, i don't even know what you are suggestion people do to "wake up" as you put it. maybe you could enlighten me but my guess is you don't have a clue.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -8/+3Except the recounts don't back up your silliness. It proves that there was NO fraud at all.
- frontporsche, on 01/21/2008, -7/+16* I'm glad that there doesn't appear to be any big deception going on. It seems the difference between Obama and Clinton will probably change by around 0.1%
* I'm really thankful to Kucinich for enabling this recount in my state to, at least for me, restore some confidence in the system.
* It's too bad, in this day and age, we can't more accurately count votes here.
* (and, for me, it's too bad Hillary is still ahead.)- kreneskyp, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4so far the totals are showing there are discrepancies. LOTS of discrepancies. Just because this time the percentages come around close doesnt mean the next time they will.
- MrTito, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1I'm I the only one surprised at just how heavily Democratic that the area they are recounting in is? Look at the side-by-side numbers, like Manchester Ward 8. McCain got 24 votes there, the most of any precincts, while Hilary Clinton got 951 votes there. What the hell?
- frontporsche, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4That's the recount of the Democrat ballots.
- obliviousfool, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3It's a semi-closed primary. If you're registered as anything but independent you have to vote in the primary of the party to which you are registered. The votes for McCain in your example would have been write-in votes.
- frontporsche, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4That's the recount of the Democrat ballots.
- dildoolielly, on 01/21/2008, -7/+18There is one single reason for a seemingly Republican majority: Diebold.
Remember this: exit polling was NEVER a theoretical science before 2004; it was absolutely rock-solid dependable, and never wrong. In 2004, all of a sudden, exit polling became a dubious science. Total bullsh*t.
The vote was rigged. Most people didn't want these bastards in power. Why do you think it took such a short time for the Bushies to be so hated? Easy. They were never liked.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa ...
Wake up, cons...your country needs you.- Ceeman, on 01/21/2008, -4/+5eh exit polls have been wrong many times what are you talking about.
- laserdog, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Believe it or not, statistics is a science.
Obviously things fall apart when the race is close enough where the margin of error can obscure the winner.
But if a result falls outside of that margin of error of a competently done exit poll, that is a statistical red flag.
It's not opinion, it's math. - PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3I know we're supposed to all have short attention spans and only remember things going back 2 or 3 weeks, not 2 or 3 years, or 2 or 3 decades, but I can't help it, I have a good memory. For the last 40 years the message about exit polls was that they were so accurate that any large discrepancy could be considered a sign of a miscount or fraud. We were told that exit polling was a scientific process of sampling from the population of those who just voted moments before, and therefore would never be more than a few points away from the actual vote counts.
Yes, in the last couple elections, the message has changed. Now the exit polling can be skewed by people intentionally misleading the pollster (though that was always part of the formula, they understood how to correct for that), or the exit polls don't include absentee or early votes (but again, the concept of sampling takes this into consideration.)
Exit polls are accurate to within +/- 3% with a 95% confidence level. Though I guess ideologues like Bill O'Reilly would have us believe that these pollster guys are just doing voodoo math and lying with statistics
- laserdog, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Believe it or not, statistics is a science.
- rocketman42, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Never wrong? Tell that to Dewey...
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -3/+1Hey, you dumb *****...this recount PROVED YOU WRONG! There was nothing but "normal" errors. You were so sure that the recount was going to show evidence of fraud AND IT DIDN'T! The errors were almost certainly caused by HUMAN error. Morons marking the ballots incorrectly.
This recount should give people with intelligence some sense of relief. The votes are chaning well less than 1%. And since it would trigger an automatic recount if two candidates were that close, it would get caught.
- Ceeman, on 01/21/2008, -4/+5eh exit polls have been wrong many times what are you talking about.
- laterthandawn, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4So, according to those numbers thus far, Clinton and Obama lost almost the exact same number of votes in the recount. Strange.
Just wanted to throw that out there.- d03boy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3it is not completed yet! they're still counting
- cosmikat, on 01/21/2008, -6/+2If Hillary is sworn in as your next president, you will know for a fact that America has been conned and that the election was a sham. Who is running this nation? It is whomever it is that places these presidents in the White House.
- sandbags, on 01/21/2008, -6/+5From what I know the party system works thusly : States cast votes. These votes when tallied up show which candidate each party will run for president. So if you wanted to get your candidate elected you wouldn't just rig one state and make it a really big discrepancy. You would rig many states and make it only a small amount. That way it is harder to detect but the outcome is the same.
This is the most important election in your history. The world watches America to see what will happen next. ATM Americas standing around the world is pretty low. I'm not being nasty but the reality is that you are hated by most everyone on the planet. That includes Australia and the UK, where it's really only the government that supports you. The feeling among the masses is that you will step on whoever you want to get what you want and you don't care about the rest of the world. If you can't have fair elections in America where you can all see whats going on. If the news can't accurately describe the situation there, what hope do you have for ever bringing democracy to Iraq?
Please America. For the sake of humanity, wake up. Don't let petty in-fighting and party lines destroy all that was once good about your country. You are no longer the leader of the world, just its policeman. And NOBODY likes the cops.- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1Clearly you DON'T understand how the party system works. Doesn't matter how much you win a state by. If you win it, you win it. So changing the numbers around "a little bit" is meaningless unless that little bet changes who had more votes.
- PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2And neither do you, clearly.
Republican primaries are "winner takes all", however Democratic primaries allocate delegates based on the percentage of each candidate's votes.
In other words, if Hillary comes in first place in NH with 38% and Obama comes in second with 30%, and there are 100 delegates from NH (just for example) -- Hillary gets 38 NH delegates, and Obama gets 30 delegates.
- PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2And neither do you, clearly.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1Clearly you DON'T understand how the party system works. Doesn't matter how much you win a state by. If you win it, you win it. So changing the numbers around "a little bit" is meaningless unless that little bet changes who had more votes.
- greenythebeast, on 01/21/2008, -0/+11I just looked on the secretary of state's website and it says Clinton lost 675 votes, not gained.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm- laterthandawn, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Gained, as in "gained from Diebold's misdeeds."
Ironically, Obama has lost 679. - d03boy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8the count is not finished........ ugh.... this article is INACCURATE
- laterthandawn, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Gained, as in "gained from Diebold's misdeeds."
- GhostyBoy, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Whatever comes of this I just hope that we realize that the machines are faulty and that the election process is in serious jeapordy(if not completely screwed.)
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1No...the HUMAN VOTERS are faulty. Mismarked ballots is what likely cuased this error. And there is nothing wrong with the process since it did not change hte outcome, and resulted in well under 1% difference. Anything under 2% (I think) triggers an automatic recount, so if that tiny discrepancy was ever in a position to change the outcome, it would get caught in the recount.
- PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2This doesn't sound like faulty human voters:
"Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures. "
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
- PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2This doesn't sound like faulty human voters:
- PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/videos.html
Machines showing the same results every time they "recount them" doesn't prove anything, once the fraud has been committed, it will report the same results every time you ask it for the results. Without dual auditing capabilities, like printing two receipts, one that goes into a locked bin, the other going to the voter, and the bin copy being viewable by the voter to confirm that the two show the exact same thing, nobody will ever be able to prove that the machine is counting every 50th vote incorrectly, because asking for the total is always going to show the same results. Counting the receipts would show that the machine total is false.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1No...the HUMAN VOTERS are faulty. Mismarked ballots is what likely cuased this error. And there is nothing wrong with the process since it did not change hte outcome, and resulted in well under 1% difference. Anything under 2% (I think) triggers an automatic recount, so if that tiny discrepancy was ever in a position to change the outcome, it would get caught in the recount.
- Patrikimo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4I hope people realize that Hillary's 600 vote difference is because Weare County's original vote is included but not the recount, which is currently incomplete? Obama has a similar deficit.
- nittanylion06, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Yep. Richardson actually as the highest vote difference right now at 139. (Weare county ignored)
- ambanmba, on 01/21/2008, -0/+30"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
- Caeili, on 01/21/2008, -3/+0Someone should put his ideas into practice on a national level.
- PhilLesh69, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1While that statement is true in essence, I think there is some dispute about whether Stalin actually said this.
- ZenMojo, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5People are focused heavily on a recount that's supposed to last FORTY-TWO DAYS!!!! Relax, sit back, and wait until it's done.
- draculthemad, on 01/21/2008, -2/+4Er, im confused. I looked at the numbers, and the margin for error seems to be 6 votes out of 2 thousand. Thats not that bad at all. Its not like suddenly we are finding a 10% or 20% margin.
Thats ~.3%- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2The errors on something like this shouldn't "balance out."
If you look closer there are three polling places that are 10% wrong or more each. That means that there are 10% cumulative errors balancing out those obvious errors. - Hedegaard, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2might be 0.3% but federal law states a maximum of 0.002% discrepancy ..
- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2The errors on something like this shouldn't "balance out."
- buckrogers1965, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7What I haven't seen yet is a list that shows the number of people that voted at each polling place.
Number of people who voted == Sum ( Number of votes for each candidate. )
This is just a quick sanity check that would probably catch the 10% under votes that I am seeing in the recounts so far.
It looks like just a few polling places messed up really badly and just comparing the totals to the number of people who voted would catch a lot of these obvious mistakes.
The two ward 5's seem to have dropped a lot of votes, I wonder why. They were off by 142 votes with only 1400 votes in that area. That is 10% wrong.
Wilton was 100 votes wrong for Obama and they only had 900 votes. That is 1 in 9 votes miscounted.
10%+ errors on counting votes makes voting worthless, that is a 20% swing in the vote.
The chain of custody also seems to be amazingly lacking for votes. At a minimum they should have tamper resistant ballot bags, that are sealed with numbered security plastic ties and the number used recorded on the signed ballot receipts. The boxes should each be picked up at the time the vote is finished by state troopers and taken directly to a central voting repository where they are all checked in. The vote paperwork showing how many people voted in each polling place should be immediately made public so that nothing can change mysteriously later.
It looks like they throw the ballots into some closets at hundreds of locations, and then have the same two state employees pick them all up in a white van. Two guys means that as they drive around one of the guys can sit in back and switch votes around in the cardboard boxes. Or not. Why not have one guy in the van be followed by a state trooper that he doesn't know? Or if they need 2 guys, have the second guy ride with the trooper. - Nin10dude, on 01/21/2008, -0/+10Perhaps I'm being horribly ignorant to something, and if so, I apologize for that... but why is it so hard to make a simple program that counts votes accurately?
- Navicerts, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Dumb users mostly. Old people that don't know how to work the machine and use it wrong. Also a lot of these polling places are staffed by people over 60 only; they probably can't provide good assistance and set the machine up wrong.
There is also the idea that it is not hard, and the system is simply abused. As a programmer I can say it is a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface. - bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Because the humans that are voting make errors on the ballots.
- Navicerts, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Dumb users mostly. Old people that don't know how to work the machine and use it wrong. Also a lot of these polling places are staffed by people over 60 only; they probably can't provide good assistance and set the machine up wrong.
- Beagle17, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8It is worth noting that normally a hand-recount will GIVE more votes to all candidates with a decent percentage of support. This is because the machines are more likely to score a ballot as unreadable than a person is. But in many of these recounts, Clinton, Obama and Edwards actually LOST votes from the recount. This does look suspicious I think.
Also, people who argue that small variations in some ridings means nothing. This is wrong. If someone wants to rig an election, they would, of course, try to swing the vote by small margins in several scattered ridings. The voting activists generally believe this is done by "flipping" results in carefully ridings that are predicted to be small-margin victories for the other guys.
BTW, the private company (crazy) in charge of the voting in most areas in NH and rest of New England as well - LHS Associates - is also a "data-mining" company that collects demographic information from the public.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_cri_0 ...
Is this not a conflict of interest? And shouldn't private companies be barred from running elections no matter what? Why do so many Americans seem to think that "chaotic free-enterprise" is the best paradigm for literally everything?- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Yeah..becuase someone is going to take the HUGE risk of tampering with these votes just to take away a couple hundred votes from EACH of the top runners, not changing the outcome at all.
You know...just for FUN!
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Yeah..becuase someone is going to take the HUGE risk of tampering with these votes just to take away a couple hundred votes from EACH of the top runners, not changing the outcome at all.
- WriteOfNowhere, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Well, The media's not going to cover it, They want to sway your opinion and.. If they created a program that computed the number of votes more accurately they wouldn't be able to "fudge" the ballets so easily.. now I'm not saying the governments out to "get people" but they are out for themselves. I can tell you the main stream media is NOT going to go against their favorite candidates as Clinton,Obama, McCain etc.. the "bigger" names .. what about the fact they kept Thompson(i think it was) out of a debate and took it to the supreme court AFTER he was granted access by the judicial system. Plus they have gone so far as too simply leaving out any Mentioning of Ron Paul and even editing out content, even when he does better than other candidates and they get recognition??.... So, you think it's a mistake that it's "miscounted" sure you can say it's human error but why can't they fix it?.. They the government doesn't want too. Your votes "don't directly" affect the election anyway they are elected by state, our vote is too sway the state. It is true most people need to wake up to the governments grasp on our liberty's WAKE UP.. please, wake up and shake the person next to you as well...
besides the media will choose our next president for us.... - hittnrun, on 01/21/2008, -7/+1Can you rats just wait until you lose the general election to start your 2008 election whining?
- one0them, on 01/21/2008, -1/+6Without saying any names (which might incite the bury-bot) One Republican write-in picked up 21% in the recount, If he does that well in the statewide recount, then he won NH. BTW: come to redd|t it's like a non rigged d|gg.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1Uhhhh....you ***** idiot...this was DEMOCRAT ballots! All the republicans picked up votes because of the very nature of having to vote for a write in.
And THIS is why RonPaulians are not taken seriously. Because you are compeltely ***** ignorant of EVERYTHING that life entails.
- bingobongony, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1Uhhhh....you ***** idiot...this was DEMOCRAT ballots! All the republicans picked up votes because of the very nature of having to vote for a write in.
- nittanylion06, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Buried as inaccurate. That 675 number is because Weare isn't finished. The site has Clinton with 630 votes in Weare, and no votes in the recount (same for all candidates). In actuality, so far, she's at +45 and Obama's at +99 and Richardson leads the pack at +139.
- Harbinger187, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3the company that handled all the ballots, as well as the recount has convicted felon as VP. add to that alot of the "sealed" ballot boxes had slits in them allowing access to the ballots without breaking the seal.
- Swift2, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3In many other precincts, Obama's vote fell too. Nothing reported so far would in any way affect the outcome. There were no major anomalies, folks. Of course, the answer to this is, "they altered the ballots to make them close to the results." And your proof of this is...? It's not perfect, no election is. But you haven't shown any mechanism by which fixing went on, like the reports about Katherine Harris, and the deliberate elimination of African Americans from the ballot in Florida as part of a deliberately sloppy felon purge. What do you find evidence of them doing? You don't have squat here, so far. The fact that a few ballots here and there were missed doesn't say a thing. And I'm for the kind of reforms put in force in California, and a paper trail and all the rest.
- one2gamble, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1The fact that there are differences at all should cause a serious concern. Some of the districts are showing a error rate in excess of 10% which is huge if you consider the vote totals across the entire state/country.
- baalzebub, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3if you have a compromised computer system with corrupted data all the recounts in the world are not going to produce accurate results, toss computerized voting machines in the recycle bin to be scrapped for parts...
- ahhell, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Can't you Americans have one single election where some ***** doesn't cheat?
How hard is that??- holzp, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2The likelihood of someone cheating increases with the importance of the event. There is no more important re-occurring event in America than a Presidential Election, of course people cheat.
- ShindeKudasai, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1http://www.wmur.com/politics/15087001/detail.html
What this "article" doesn't bother to state is that most of the discrepancies are due to human error. In Ward 5 for instance the reason the vote count changed so much is that people wrote in the name of the presidential candidate in the box for the vice presidential candidate which means on some ballots the candidate was counted twice. No big deal. And as for vote tallies affecting mostly the establishment candidates all I have to say is well no *****! Statistically speaking when just one or two people receive the lions share of the vote then it stands to reason the people with the biggest stock of votes will see the most variation.
On a final note, people who are convinced there is a conspiracy afoot will usually find one. Why can't you just accept that nobody "stole" the last election. In 2004 the democratic platform was "we hate George Bush." In 2008 it seems to be "the evil Republicans stole the election!". It's getting old.
Ron Paul '08! - unklesam666, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2BUMP FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!!!!!!
- davidkeithjones, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1GNN, really? Not the most reliable source in the world. Im not saying that the election process isn't crap; however, we need some credible source to forward these issues.
- Entropicone, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Clinton DID NOT gain 675 votes, nor DID Obama gain so many votes, nor did EDWARDS, did you guys even look at the page? He included counties where the numbers for the recount aren't in, it's just trying to sensationalize this.
If you want the real results clinton is down 99 votes now, obama is down 88 and edwards is down 24. You can find that actual numbers at the site below.
http://tyranarchy.com/content/view/15/1/
Not one person verified this on their own?!?!!- Harbinger187, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1one thing i can verify is that ron paul is not on that list at all. another nail in the coffin proving main stream media is blacking him out.
- Mokey, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2The screenshot linked in the article even states in big, bold, red letters: "PLEASE NOTE: The tally for WEARE is not done!!"
Great work, not really what I'd expect from an article which opens with "Why is it so few people pay attention to the big things?" :) - Beagle17, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2I finally thought to use a proxy server and was able to see the full (but incomplete) recount results page. I copied the numbers into a spreadsheet and then realized there is a big problem with my assertion that Clinto lost 675 votes in the recount. The results page sums the original votes including the Weare riding, but doesn't include that riding in the recount sum. So, Clinton only lost 45 votes. There is no way she could have gained more than 0.2% unfairly for Hillsborough county.
Someone tried to point this out earlier on the thread.
Nevertheless, the recount is revealing some pretty slack procedures in New Hampshire. Photos here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bev_harr_0 ... - stealthc, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
- jeffs111, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Many if not most of the elections in the US nowadays are based on election fraud by elections "officials" and their cronies. Check out http://www.BlackBoxVoting.Org to see clear evidence that the US no longer holds reliable democratic elections, and that the systems are built to make perpetration of election fraud as simple as pie, and virtually impossible for whatever few watchdogs there are to prove and/or take effective legal action to stop. This is a complete disgrace to our heritage. The only solution is to downsize the government and elect an honest man to the White House. Google "Ron Paul" to see the one man who could have saved this country and to learn about his ideas via his speeches and writings on the Internet.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by