Diebold and New Hampshire

[2rth2pwr]

At the completion of the New Hampshire primaries, certain elements are are claiming an “astonishing” discrepancy between the results tallied by hand and those tallied by Diebold machines. Naturally reddit jumped on the bandwagon as fast as possible. Here are the results as of 96% precincts reporting (NB: others include Biden, Gravel and Dodd, CNN didn’t provide info for the rest of the field when I collated the data. The rest accounted for about 1% of the vote):



At first glance, the results seem to backup the conspiracy theorists. Is it possible that Clinton’s vote could be so much greater in the Diebold Districts and every other candidate slightly less without foul play? Has Diebold rigged the count in Hillary’s favor? Or is there something else at play?

Whilst Hand Districts are more numerous than Diebold Districts, they tend to be in less populous areas and far fewer votes are hand-counted than tallied by machine. Note that this table currently excludes the 9 Hand Districts and 2 Diebold Districts that have yet to report results.
http://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/diebold-and-new-hampshire/




The discrepency may just be a matter of demographics: urban voters may like Hillary more than rural voters. So what happens when we looks at similarly sized districts? Here are the results in districts where between 900 and 1200 votes were cast.



The effect is far smaller when comparing similar districts, but probably not enough to arrest the fears of conspiracy theorists. In the end, Clinton won because she was more popular in the large precincts which happen to be tallied by Diebold machines. Correlation, not causation seems more likely to me.


There are so many variables in an election result that to put Hillary’s win down to jiggery-pokery without any real evidence is over the top. Demographics of the turnout and McCain siphoning Independents away from Obama at the last minute are infinitely more likely to have affected the than Diebold skullduggery.

For democracy to work, the system must be transparent and maintain the confidence of its participants. Proprietary voting machines fail both these tests. American, as far as I know, are still capable of counting, so should return exclusively to the paper ballot.

[Lerkfish]

1. just as in the 2004 election, however, asking the questions in the first place

is the beginning of the investigation.
To tell people to NOT question diebold is the beginning of the coverup.

[ixion]

2. exactly... I'm amazed at how so many people have suddenly forgotten

that there have been nothing but curious discrepancies where electronic voting is concerned.

[Lerkfish]

4. simple: if it benefits their candidate, there's no discrepancy.

we need to get to a point iwth out leaderst that they take the rights of citizens as MORE IMPORTANT than their own political careers.

what happened? Where are our true leaders?

[rinsd]

8. And if Hillary had not won, you would not hear a peep about it.

So yeah this is obviously motivated by partisanship.

[Lerkfish]

10. nah, actually, I've clearly stated in the past and continually how I don't

trust electronic voting.

have you in the past stated continually how you trust electronic voting? If so, then your'e consistent.

I'm consistently against it, no matter who wins.

capiche?

[ixion]

17. I support Kucinich

so please explain to me how I'm being partisan.

All I'm asking for are fair elections. Electronic voting has proved consistently that it's bug-ridden and full of possible security exploits. It has everything to do with fair elections and NOTHING to do with partisanship.

[Imagevision]

5. As Diebold has stated; "you'll just have to trust us" (?!)

[rinsd]

6. When it is done so for nakedly partisan reasons, I think the talk can be dismissed.

"To tell people to NOT question diebold is the beginning of the coverup."

LOL. How convenient! Piss on Hillary's victory with hollow claims of fraud then claim arguments against those claims are further evidence of fraud.

So this is how the mind of the tin foiler works.

[Lerkfish]

12. so, you're saying I'm not allowed to support transparent elections?

or it means I'm a "tin foiler"?

omg, I'm supporting fair elections, I must be INSANE!

[rinsd]

20. I think you are being disengnuous about your motivations to talk about it.

And now you are playing some weird censorship card.

As if your posts should stand unopposed.

[Lerkfish]

27. I think you should find other targets.

buh bye

[Kurovski]

34. Many people talking about it now , have been talking about it for years

in the Election Reform Forum.

Don't panic. Anyone accusing Sen. Clinton of this fraud is wrong. She's not the one deciding these things.

[K Gardner]

36. Good point. n/t

[Lerkfish]

16. is my post #9 nakedly partisan?

am I partisan to say that the 2004 election is STILL being investigated, at least in Ohio?

is that partisan of me?

[rinsd]

21. I wasn't speaking directly on you in that reference.

I was referring to the trolls claiming to be Obama supporters.

[Imagevision]

3. 2004 election I recall it being said; "the early exit polls got it wrong with John Kerry"

[Lerkfish]

9. and four years later, we still have coverups of what happened in OHIO

remember the fake dept. of homeland security lockdown of the polls in one county? tlhey're still wrangling over the illegality of that.

the next day is way too soon to declare diebold okeydoke.

[ORDagnabbit]

7. It also happened on the other side with Mccain

[Tarc]

11. The tinfoil hats are folded double-thick tonight

How many different topics have you spread this fallacious argument to, now? I've lost count.

Different people in different parts of the country have different opinions. If you thought that a victory in traditional, conservative Iowa was going to translate into victory up here in finicky New Hampshire...and when it didn't then there MUST be a conspiracy of a fraud, then you have a very naive grasp on politics, I'm afraid.

[Lerkfish]

14. Tin foil is the new black

according to my Fashion Progressive Magazine.

:)

[2rth2pwr]

19. Did you actually read the post?

That's a rhetorical question, because obviously you didn't.

Just read the last 2 paragraphs, homey.

[TheWatcher]

23. Obviously you do not yet understand the basic American mentality about things such as this.

Let me lay it out for you.

"If it's too scary for me to deal with, or something that would totally destroy the belief system or paradigm in which everything MUST function in order for me to remain comfortable, it is ALWAYS a conspiracy and therefore does not exist. Therefore, since it does not exist, and it is impossible for it to exist, ANY evidence, no matter how objective, factual, or reasonable, shall be ignored, shouted down, and pooh-poohed at ALL costs."

Welcome To The Matrix.

[Tarc]

32. homey?

Drop the racist speak please, else your stay here will be cut short.

[2rth2pwr]

38. Is that a threat

dawg?

[NightWatcher]

13. diebold. changing democracy one vote at a time (pics)

[suston96]

15. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! This is not EV - electronic voting.

The ballots must be MANUALLY filled out. The tabulation IS electronic (optical scanning). But...

There is a 100% paper trail - the physical ballots which make manual recounts possible if needed..

The ballots are scanned at the precinct level, in real time, tabulated there and sent to the election headquarters where the totals for each precinct have to be listed publicly.

It will be impossible if not stupid for those totals to be rigged.

[Lerkfish]

18. here's a link for you.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5301

[TheWatcher]

24. And as usual, the response to the link will be.....

People simply do not WANT to know.

[suston96]

26. No, the response will be....Paper ballots can be recounted manually, so screwing around with...

...electronic scanners and tabulators is stupid. No one said cheating wasn't possible.

I have cursed Deadbold for years and fully support kicking them out of the electoral system as a result of their past transgressions and open support for Republicans.

But I know enough about electronics to understand that in a semi-electronic electoral system, the manual component can easily overcome any rigging that is attempted.

BTW, your favorite ATM machine? Look at the manufacturer'd ID plate next time.

Edited: Hooray for me. That was my 1000th post. Do I get a prize, or something?

[Lerkfish]

29. did you read at the link?

just curious.

[suston96]

31. Yes I did. Rigging an electronically tabulated count is dangerous and a felony.

And it is stupid, especially when there are paper ballots that can be recounted manually.

I have seen close local elections where courts have counted those optiscan ballots manually to determine an "intended vote" or not.

But the silliest thing about these posts here is that the Obama campaign has said or done nothing about this because it realizes how ludicrous and stupid the charges are.

[Stewie]

30. Ugh.

From the link: "When private corporate interests count 81% of our ballots in secret, do we still have a democracy?"

I know the word "private corporate interests" is intended to terrorize the reader and inflame their emotions, but can you explain just how eeeeeeevil Diebold steals the election when the ballot order is randomized thoughout the state and all the votes are on paper?

The "private corporate interests" have no idea where on the ballot she is, since it varies thoughout the state and all the votes cast on the eeevil "private corporate interests" are hanging around as hard evidence of the actual vote count.

I grew up on the Texas/Louisiana border. I've seen 113% turnout in precincts. I've seen red ballot boxes in the polling place that suddenly became blue ones at central count. I've seen voter fraud. This ain't it.

We now return you to your delusional paranoid fantasy, already in progress.

[Kurovski]

35. They're also Republican owned.

I remind you just to widen the possible breadth of your case that you've overlooked.

Op scans can be hacked, too. I think there's a link upthread.

[Thrill]

22. Freepers are saying Ron Paul got hit by these machines too

The Repukes want Hilary and want to get rid of Ron Paul

[Lerkfish]

28. the problem is that there is no transparency, that's true not matter what the

election or candidate, as long as the possibility exists for malfeasance without oversight, one can never be certain.

[sam kane]

25. The rural preference for Obama will remain true across the country. LOL.

I would love to see the internal poll numbers from Clinton and Obama on the rural/urban divide. These results are suspect, because rural voters are notoriously more conservative that urban, and Clinton on Iran, Iraq, etc. is too.

Don't trust Diebold, don't wear tinfoil.

[Occam Bandage]

41. Exit polls also showed that people who are more conservative on those issues

voted Obama. Republicans and moderates prefer him, too.

[K Gardner]

33. I hope someone stays on top of this. Thank you for posting.

[hayu_lol]

37. Some idiot just called the Gene Burns show on KGO, San Francisco...

screaming at the top of his lungs that Hillary had brought in busloads of foreign voters(from outside NH)and threw the count out so that it didn't match the polls. He also claimed that today the polls were the same as they were prior to the election.

Pretty fast for someone well rehearsed to make false claims about an election 3000 miles away. No proof, just hearsay.

Once this 'tampering' claim has been made, how does one justify the final totals of a state's election...or validate them?

He did not go on and claim Diebold did it, it was just all Hillary who rigged it. No one admits to this in Florida in 2000. No one admits to this in Ohio. But a small state primary is getting national attention about a fraudulent election.

I dunno, as a Hillary supporter, I could deal with an honest loss. So could the rest of us I suspect. But, if the totals are accused of being false, then what? We are all in trouble.

Are the ballots all paper and pencil in NH?

Anyone else picking up any such reports across the country? A staged call-in across the country would indicate some sort of tampering by parties unknown.

[EVDebs]

39. What about the missing 500,000 voters in NH ? only 282,065 voted ...

"850,836 total registered voters -- 26% Democratic, 30% Republican, 44% Independent"

http://political.shoutingmat.ch/comments/2059829.html

This is the real story. Our so-called Democracy is being destroyed by couch-potatoes. Either that or Edwards is busting his ass off for people who can't make it to the polls to vote for him. Why bother ? The corporate candidates are sewing up the vote right now anyway, eh ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'm told that only around 300,00 of Iowa's potential 2 million voters actually caucused !

[Texas_Kat]

40. Absolutely! we should investigate!

Do you have any clue how easy it is to tamper with paper ballots? No, well Senator Phil Gramm (TX) won his first elected position (5th congressional district-TX) due to just that kind of tampering with paper ballots.

3 boxes where the precinct chairs were his county chairmen. The changes on those ballots were blatant.

I say we investigate all paper ballots and recount the whole damned thing in NH!

The Gramm story is true, but
:sarcasm: for the sentiment

[sojourner]

42. could DUers please stop calling people with doubts about elections using

unverifiable methodology "conspiracy theorists"? It's been well established that in years past there has been election fraud but little has been done about it. Because I remain concerned about this, and am cautious about accepting results should NOT be a reason to call me a nutjob, or as you put it, a "conspiracy theorist".

[suston96]

43. Twas not Diebold that killed the beast...twas the women - thousands of them - the unpolled women -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903855_pf.html

Clinton's Campaign in N.H. Touched Chord With Women

Read it. You might learn something about real political campaigning.

And I repeat: why hasn't the Obama campaign filed a complaint and demanded a recount? This was a 100% paper ballot election. They are all available to manually recount. Go up there to New Hampshire and demand to recount the ballots yourselves. It is your right. It is your duty !

[Kurovski]

44. To use a hackneyed phrase seen around here today: "prove it."

She touched a chord? (That doesn't sound quite as good as the 2004 election's "anti-gay marriage" voters who suddenly sprang into action in a few hours before the polls closed.) it's pretty intangible and fairly unprovable, and always will be. Yet you've decided that's what did it?

The best that can be done is count the votes by hand, and if they're accurate, maybe then your theory of what happened may be correct. Or maybe it's one of the dozens of others floating around.

The article is typical corporate media, happy horseshit yamming-on about the only two candidates they seem interested in.

How the hell are we supposed to know why Obama isn't going for a recount? We can play the guessing game on that one too, I suppose. But it isn't any kind of proof that something isn't wrong in NH.

Obama may pay the price for sitting on his hands, or denying it, or just not speaking about it. He may think saying something will exact a price. He may think it's all nuts, in which case he can take a flying leap. If he can't ask for a simple thing to ensure votes, no one fucking needs him around. Except for the folks placated by happy horseshit, I guess. There are unusual occurences here. They require examination, not media punditry, conflicting fabrications, and second-guessing.

And there will be plenty of people willing to count the ballots. Your convoluted, snotty-assed "rallying cry" is nothing more than a snazzy way of saying "Shut the fuck up." More people will speak up, than those who will take action. Speech is where action begins.

This Election Reform forum has seen years of folks who have come and gone, who applied a similar arrogance and dismissiveness as that which you display here.

There is a remakable, openly admitted anomoly in this election, we have a company known for the proven hackability of its product counting 80% of the vote. Only a sleepwalking fool, a coward, or a person driven by their contempt for Democracy would strive to run in a direction away from such a raised red flag.