No one knows who wins ANY American election. We. Do. Not. Know.

[riqster]

I have been reading a lot about the NH results, and it has become very clear to me that, like Americans in general, many DUers do not understand how elections operate in 21st century America. So here's a brief primer on the process:

{1} Jane Q Public registers to vote. It might be by mail, in person, at the BMV, etc. Her registration is taken by a government employee (at the Board of Elections) and typed into a computer. After this, her original registration card is kept in a file box for a certain amount of time, but usually isn't seen again until it is disposed of. That computer links to a database that is designed, installed, and maintained by a private company, almost all of which are owned by Dominionist Republicans.

{2}From this point forward, that private entity controls whether or not Jane is allowed to vote. It or another of its ilk also sets up the means by which she votes, counts her vote, all the while keeping the entire process a a secret. The government has exactly zero control of the electoral process: it has been privatized.

What this means is very simple:NO ELECTION HELD IN THIS NATION CAN BE VERIFIED TO EVEN A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.

We are left to draw inferential conclusions, based on exit polls (also done by private firms) advance polling data (likewise), and historical data, which have no real truth value.

When your candidate wins, it may or may not be true. When your candidate loses,it may or may not be true (unless,like me, you back Kucinich. :P ).

So when questions are raised, remember these basic facts, and be supportive of election reform efforts. It is NEVER a bad thing to know the truth about an election. Look at the current paradigm, built on opacity and falsehood, and prove me wrong.

[rudy23]

1. Thank you! It's not about who won or lost, even if that's what sparks the suspicion

That is irrelevant to the fact that it is never bad to have more sets of eyes checking OUR votes--our one voice in this country.

[99th_Monkey]

2. The NH "miracle win" by Hillary is no mystery if one compares hand-counted w/Diebold

optical scanned ballots .. In NH 81% of ballots were optically scanned by Diebold scanners to do the "count" .. when comparing this 81% to the
19% that were hand counted the so-called mystery is solved... at least to my satisfaction.

The Diebold optical scanners did the trick for Hillary, the Dem Nomine-of-Necon-choice.

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%

Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html


If you are wondering as to the motive of why the Rethug-owned Diebold Corp. would want Hillary to "win", look no further than this:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080108_conservative_right_c.htm

[riqster]

3. This is a great example.

You make a good case, but someone can always come back and say (in fact, they have done): "the hand-count areas are smaller and more rural than the larger population centers that run optical scan. That's probably why there's a difference."

Sounds reasonable but again, it's not fact based-it's an inferential response to your quantitatively based statement. And that passes for OK in today's America, where we are given the mushroom treatment.

Until we have TRANSPARENCY, we're stuck.

[kimmerspixelated]

5. Touche'!

Thanks.

[AtLiberty]

4. K & R

!!!

THANKS, RIQSTER!

[understandinglife]

6. PRECISELY.

:thumbsup:

FYI --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=488968&mesg_id=489004

[rainy]

7. K and R I've been thinking about this all day. It makes me so mad!

[riqster]

8. Election fraud is everybody's problem.

But so few want to be part of the solution. :banghead:

[eridani]

9. David Dill's quote should be on billboards all over the country

It is not enough that elections BE accurate; we have to KNOW that they are accurate, and we don't.

[mod mom]

10. EXACTLY! Anyone else here pissed at the attacks for questioning the integrity by folks who

haven't even bothered to see there is a problem-just shhot off their mouths that we are attacking their candidate? I thought all DUers wanted verifiable elections and not faith-based results. Sheesh!

[riqster]

11. Well, I'm pissed.

At the "If I'm winning, shut up" crowd, and DU itself for giving ER hind tit.