What to expect from a NH Recount and Why

[kster]

January 16, 2008

by Mark Crispin Miller

The NH recount is going forward after all, as many of you have pointed out to me.

However, Kucinich is settling for a partial recount---which, as Nancy Tobi argues here, is likelier to cover up the fraud (if any) than expose it.

MCM I understand that Howard is going ahead with the Repub recount after Gardner backed off a challenge to his interpretation of the law that all the cash had to be paid up front. I also understand there are operatives working on Howard to only do a partial recount. The Kucinich team has already decided to only do a partial recount. Below is a little piece I wrote to explain why a partial recount, just like a random audit, does not have any statistical merit in detecting fraud. Again, this recount does not solve our problem. We need a full investigation to reveal the truth behind decisions that were made that resulted in NH handing over 81% of our votes to a private corporation, which counts them in secret, whose second line of business is data mining, and whose executive management includes a convicted felon - a drug trafficker. The recount is a good campaign PR for Kucinich maybe, but does little for the cause of election integrity. You are free to distribute this. I have also attached a small file that explains more about LHS
Associates.

HOW DOES NEW HAMPSHIRE'S RECOUNT CULTURE FACILITATE RATHER THAN DETER ELECTION RIGGING?

New Hampshire officials like to point to our accessible recounts as both a
deterrent to fraud and as "proof" that our machines are functioning just
dandy. But let's look at some of the characteristics of the NH culture, and
we see that it actually is a great cover for election rigging.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_cri_080116_what_to_expect_from_.htm

[global1]

1. Is It A Matter Of Money That Dennis Is Only Doing A Partial Recount?......

Can he not afford to do a full recount? After they do this partial recount - can he still order up a full recount? Is there something we can do to help out Dennis?

[mcscajun]

2. Last I heard, he's paying for the Hillsborough County recount first,

starting in Manchester, and then he'll decide if he'll pay for a full one. My guess is (because Manchester is the county seat of Hillsborough County, and the city with the highest population in the state) that if there are any anomolies, they'll show up in HC right off, and then he can pursue the full recount; if not, he can save his money.

[papau]

3. he's chosen areas that Hillary won - not Obama - why? and 70k cost for whole election is too

much because it might find Obama areas made errors?

I understand DK is in for only 25k as that would get the high Hillary voting areas - not that DK is doing this for Obama :-)

[mcscajun]

4. I don't believe that any Hillary/Obama consideration entered into the choice of area.

I believe it's a statistical matter, nothing more. Start the recount where you can find out the most quickly, and see if there's a case to pursue a full statewide recount. Doesn't want to waste money he may still need to spend elsewhere (as he's not withdrawing yet).

[global1]

13. If One Was Going To Rig The Vote Would They Pick Hillsborough County?.....

If logic says Hillsborough County (HC) has the city with the highest population in the state in it and if somebody wants a recount to see if there are any irregularities they would pick Hillsborough County - why would I mess around with funny stuff in this county.

Cause when a recount is performed then and one doesn't see any irregularities - they will not go any further.

So I wouldn't pull any funny stuff in HC - there are plenty enough obscure counties all around the state - that I can mess with and be safe that they wouldn't be a target for a recount.

So if one was really serious about doing a recount because they thing some funny stuff was going on with the vote - one should do the whole enchilada.

[autorank]

5. Count 'em all. That's what a good business does - AN INVENTORY

You don't count part of the store or warehouse, you count everything. It's called an inventory.

Good business operations see this as an embedded assumption. No partial audits, no samples, count
it all.

That's lets you know what's actually in stock.

It's the same with elections. Don't recount part of it, count it all. If you're a few votes off,
well, hats off to you because there are a lot of votes. But if there's a problem, it shows up in
an inventory.

Fiddling around with less, making it cost punitive to do this violates common sense and good
business practices. Ever hear of a business saying, oh, we can't afford an inventory. Oh yeah,
well you can't afford to be in business then can you?

Big load of b.s, all this messing around. Do we have elections at and for the convenience of
bureaucrats? I thought they were our servants?

[bleever]

6. Damn it, you're right.

How many businesses do inventory on 10% of the warehouse? You'd be crazy to run a business that way. Even a small, marginally successful business.

If the employees say, oh, it will take too long to count all the stock, and we are tired and have other things to do, what happens?

Darn it, now you've made me mad.

[autorank]

7. Be mad about this;)

4 - 12

Whatever happened to this?



I'll tell you what! They didn't do a damn inventory. Oops, left out "great quaterback" and
guess what - years of sadness for Raider Nation types;)

[riqster]

8. Kucinich is paying for this out of his limited campaign funds

...and I applaud him for doing so. It means he can pay for even fewer ads, even less travel, and get even fewer primary votes. If other people want more, let them pony up the dough.

If Hillary or Obama were driving the recount, I'd agree that the whole state should be done, because they have the funds. Kooch hasn't that luxury.

[Tesha]

9. If *EITHER OF THEM* had asked, their recount would have cost $2,000.

> If Hillary or Obama were driving the recount, I'd agree that the
> whole state should be done, because they have the funds. Kooch
> hasn't that luxury.

Because the margin between the lead candidates was smaller than
3%, if *EITHER OF THEM* had asked, their recount would have cost
$2,000. But they're not doing it, Kuch is. And because his margin
of defeat was a bit more than 3%, he'll bear the full cost of
recounting the Democratic ballots: $0.24/ballot for a total cost
of $7x,000.

Tesha

[suston96]

10. Depending on how far the recount goes.....

....it may end up showing what most people don't want to hear: results not very much different from election day, so.....the machines are just fine and they can be trusted.

[Tesha]

11. Yes, *THAT* is the big downside risk.

Because Republicans will lead people to conflate the
concepts of:

1. Paper ballots that are then machine scanned

and

2. Paperless, auditless, Direct Recording Electronic (DRE)
voting machines.

The "talking point" will be that "the New Hampshire recount
proves that electronic vote tabulation is safe, secure, and
accurate" and because this soundbite will have been repeated
approximately nineteen million times, we'll then be unable
to convince anyone of the problem when DREs are subsequently
used to steal an election.

Tesha

[riqster]

12. Depends on what's acceptable, and reported

If people don't care if their vote is counted, they'll be OK with it. Keep in mind, the recounts have uncovered missed votes in all hand-counted areas so far.

If people are all warm and fuzzy with the knowledge that their government hasn't a clue where their votes are, it'll be OK.

Frankly, if people are that fucking clueless, they deserve what they get.

[Stevepol]

14. II think MCM's assertions are being born out in the recount.

See www.blackboxvoting.org for a description of the problems with chaiin of custody and the complete reliance by the elections officials on LHS for the 80% of the vote that is machine counted.

[kster]

15. kick.nt

[L. Coyote]

16. Party divisiveness, because there is nothing here but smoke and mirrors, and

it is all dirty tricks. Just my impression anyway!

I'm not certain we can trust the polls to be honest.

Could all this have been a big setup? Easily!

[dailykoff]

17. How long does LHS have possession of the ballots when they count them?

And who delivers them and retrieves them?

I know this is the $64,000 question, but since the dubious LHS is likely to be charged with fraud if fraud is found, wouldn't they also be likely to destroy the evidence of it as soon as they commit it, say by destroying however many Obama ballots would be necessary to produce the percentages they report, and then underreporting total votes cast by the same amount, so that a recount wouldn't detect the fraud?

If they're rigging the numbers it's reasonable to assume that they're also covering their tracks.

[riqster]

18. LHS isn't doing the recount, thank the Dog. nt

[dailykoff]

19. Thanks, but I meant while they did the original counting.

In other words, if they had the ballots long enough to count them (scan them), wouldn't that also give them an opportunity to tamper with them, say be destroying Obama ballots or possibly substituting faked ballots for cast ones, before redelivering them to the SOS or whoever stores them?

[riqster]

20. IIRC, The ballots are fed into the scanners by the voters in NH

...so that's not a problem. It IS possible that that LHS tampered with the ballots after election day and before the recount, but there's no hard evidence of that as yet, and the slew of minor errors would seem to argue against it-why not make the match perfectly if they could?

We are definitely seeing crappy, poorly-maintained machines, and memory card issues as well.