NH to Recount Primary Votes

[Joanne98]

Source: AP

CONCORD, N.H. - New Hampshire officials said Friday they will conduct a hand recount of the state's Democratic and Republican presidential primaries at the request of two minor candidates.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who received less than 1.4 percent of the vote, and Republican Albert Howard of Michigan, who received about 44 votes statewide, are expected to pay a $2,000 fee to start the process, state officials said.

"Mr. Howard has satisfied the requirements for initiating a statewide recount of the Republican primary," Secretary of State William Gardner said in a statement. Officials said they expected a check from Kucinich to arrive late Friday, satisfying his requirements for the request.

Gardner is preparing an estimate of the recount's cost, which the requesting candidates must pay before it will begin. He said he expects to start the recount Wednesday, and will announce further details once the payments have been received.

Under state law, if a candidate finished more than 3 percentage points behind the winner, the candidate must pay the cost of a recount. The cost is refunded if the recount finds the requester won or finished within 1 percentage point of the winner.




Read more: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/11/ap4522734.html

[babylonsister]

1. So what if the results come out differently? What would happen, does

anyone know? :wow:

[liberalnurse]

16. Maybe I missed something,,,,

is Kucinich paying for the recount? If so, that may take all the money his campaign has left to win the Presidency!

[Zorra]

30. I'm sure Rep. Kucinich would be fine with that, as long as the interests of the people

are served.

Dennis really has nothing to gain by requesting this recount, except to ensure electoral integrity, and enhance voter confidence in the electoral process.

Pretty much everyone, except for the republicans of course, wants to be sure that our electoral system is not being manipulated by special interests using electronic voting devices to alter vote counts.

Don't you?

[liberalnurse]

33. I absolutely care....I have for a long time...pre/post Ohio 04.

I just never saw Dennis Kucinich at any of the events in Ohio where we worked on "Count Every Vote".

Here are the Ohio Leaders in 03 who were there with us....Oh, Congressman John Lewis is from Georgia, the exception in this picture,

Congress-woman Stephanie-Tubb-Jones and Congressman, now Ohio Governor Ted Strickland are seated. No Dennis Kucinich...ever. We did all the work and now it's 08. We now have Democratic SOS Jennifer Brunner actually working on converting Ohio into using paper ballots. Dennis is not around working for Ohio, his state.

[Zorra]

37. Don't know what to tell you, except for the apparent facts:

Published on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
A Note On The Presidential Election in Ohio
by Congressman Dennis Kucinich
snip---
During this interim period, attorneys from both political parties, and those representing me, will be watching the procedures by county Boards of Elections carefully. Among the most important issues to note is the counting of the overvotes. Overvotes occur when more than one candidate is indicated on the punch card. Another issue relates to whether all properly cast provisional ballots will be counted.

My constituents have also brought other issues to my attention. In an effort to provide appropriate government oversight, I am reviewing every issue and bringing them to the attention of attorneys, congressional authorities, party officials, or Boards of Elections, as appropriate. I want to assure my constituents and others who have contacted me with their concerns, that I am paying c lose attention to this important period of time between the initial results and the official vote tabulation and will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action where supported by facts.

Serious problems surfaced in this election that must be addressed at the state and national level. Some were inefficiencies in handling the massive turn out. No citizen should have to wait for hours to vote, or worry whether their vote was actually counted.

Glitches in electronic voting in the Columbus area should move all legislatures to demand paper receipts for voting machines. Without such a paper trail, no true recount can ever be done. Note that no Diebold electronic voting machines were employed in Ohio.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm

:shrug:

Apparently his constituents are reading the Cleveland Plain Dealer and therefore have no idea what DK is actually doing.

[awaysidetraveler]

26. differing results

Well, if the previous election recounts are any example to go by, then the recount results would be published. If they differed in a substancial way as far as the number of delegates going to one candidate or another, then the candidate could bring their case before the New Hampshire Appelate Court and expect to be awarded the number of delegates that they lost in the election.

[babylonsister]

27. Thanks, and welcome to DU! I hope there are monitors to keep

the counters honest. :crazy:

[Bicoastal]

2. Boy, for all our sakes, I hope nothing changes....

...if for any reason, there's a discrepancy, I can't see the results being good for ANYONE here.

[DS1]

3. Here as in DU

OMG, I'd run to the store, grab a six pack and about 4 bags of popcorn for that event :rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

4. I think if there is a discrepancy it will be good for EVERYONE

[Bicoastal]

5. Have you been READING what's been going on in GD:P lately?

It ain't pretty.

[seemslikeadream]

7. Oh no don't go there very often, scary place!

but I did just post something a few minutes ago, first time in a long long time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4036628&mesg_id=4036654

[liberalnurse]

17. Kucinich does risk loosing his votes after this is all said and done.

He may come up empty handed.

[seemslikeadream]

21. It's not about him

he's said that

[orleans]

10. wtf? you hope NOTHING changes? you prefer to allow puke

operatives to pick our candidates and presidential winners?

what did you just say?

[Bicoastal]

13. I was talking about here on DU, not the entire country.

And referring only to New Hampshire.

The Hillary people would get mad, the Obama people would get defensive, the Edwards people would come in on both sides....

...it'd be good for the country, but GD: P would explode.

[Orangepeel]

40. what's wrong with hoping that the votes are accurately counted?

that would mean that NH voters picked the winner of the primary

:shrug:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. As I said in another thread.

I'd prefer know now rather than in November.

[Skink]

6. we might find out Dean won in 04.

[Truth2Tell]

9. And Dole in 88. nt

[Spiffarino]

35. Me-OWW

:D:thumbsup:

[Atman]

8. $2000 is chump change

By all means, DK is right to do so.

But in the end, you KNOW the results won't change. Whomever programmed the counting machines, and whomever put up the cash for them to do so, isn't going to just shrug and say "whoops, you caught me!" Dennis pays $2000. They have $2,000,000.

I don't expect anything to come of this.

.

[orleans]

11. wouldn't a recount mean count the ballots BY HAND? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

22. read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x492537

[seemslikeadream]

23. It's going to be more than $2000

[Peace Patriot]

41. $2,000 is just a down payment on the recount. I think $80,000 has been

mentioned as the full cost. And it's because Kucinich is not within 3% of a possible win. What this means is that neither a minor candidate, nor the voters and general public, can get even the minimal recount required by law, without having $80,000 to spend. That may seem like chump change to Bushites and Clintonites, but to the poor it is a lot of money, and prohibitively expensive.

Audits (automatic recounts) of these corporate "trade secret" vote counts are 1% in the best of states--miserably inadequate for a "trade secret" system. Election integrity experts say 5% to 10% is the minimum needed to detect fraud. In Venezuela, they hand-count a whopping 55%, and THEY use an OPEN SOURCE code system, not "trade secret" code.

The audit is ZERO percent in the touchscreen states--about a third of the national vote in 2004.

In the optiscan states, the paper ballot is dropped into a box and never seen again--except for the 1% audit. In other words, 99% of the ballots are never counted. The machine turns the "vote" into highly manipulable electrons, and "sends" it to the central tabulators, which are also run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code. (The same thing is done with Absentee and other paper ballots, by the way--scanned right into the rigged electronics, in most cases.) If you have $80,000--or, as was required by Gov. Richardson in NM in 2004, one million dollars--you can get a meager 3% recount of selected precincts (that's the general rule). There is no circumstance--except by order of a court--in which you can get any significant percentage of the ballots actually counted. And these 3% recounts do, indeed, open up another "can of worms": which ballots to count? what is the chain of custody of those ballots from election day onward? what is the chain of custody of the computer memory cards and other records? in what ways can election officials fiddle the "recount" to protect their careers (their wasting of multi-millions of taxpayer dollars on these crapass machines) or to protect fraud? etc.

The only way to insure that your voted has been counted is to be a millionaire or billionaire, who can afford lots of lawyers, and it might help also to have your own corporate news monopoly.

Our election system is outrageously non-transparent and riggable.

This sorry state of affairs did not happen overnight, but as the result of decades of effort by our corporate rulers to gain control of our elections, for instance by making it so expensive (TV advertising, for instance) that you have to have a million dollars to even begin thinking of running for a House seat. This makes it possible to control who runs. And we should be flattered as to the reason: We, the American people are potentially the most progressive force on earth--for world peace and for saving the planet. We have to be controlled--or we might start dismantling these war profiteers and global corporate predators who are oppressing us and everybody else. It has been a long term project of these "dark lords"--since the 1960s--to destroy our sovereignty as a people, and our power and example as a largely progressive people, who reacted against unjust war (Vietnam) and brought down two presidents over it (LBJ, Nixon), as well as exposing and stopping some of the worst horrors of U.S. policy in Latin America; who initiated an amazing social revolution (black civil rights and equality, women's rights, gay rights, Native American rights, etc.), as well as the environmental movement. Our next projects would have been the unjust and unnecessary and ungodly military budget (providing a constant temptation to wars of choice), and corporate rule. The Reaganite counter-revolution stopped us. (Do you know that Reagan signed off on the slaughter of 200,000 Mayan villagers in Guatemala--totally covered up by our government and by the increasingly monopolistic and fascist corporate press? Amazing! I just found out about the magnitude of this genocide, and Reagan's complicity.)

However, there was a particularly intense effort, during the 2002 to 2004 period, to fast-track these election theft machines, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations (mostly Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), all over the country, probably to shove the Iraq War down our throats (56% of the American people opposed the war from the beginning (Feb 03/NYT; other polls 54-55%), and 70% oppose it now), and to prevent the rich from having to pay for it. The e-voting bill (HAVA) was passed by the Anthrax Congress in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution, Oct 02 (and is closely related to it, in my opinion). E-voting run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, was enthusiastically supported by the bulk of the Democrats in Congress and by the party leadership, and still is. No skepticism was expressed. No warning issued to voters.

Are our Democratic leaders nuts? No, they are corrupt--and some are fearful. The only Democrat in the country who objected (that I know of)--CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley (who tried to sue Diebold and get hold of its source code, just prior to the 2004 election)--was driven from office on entirely bogus corruption charges soon afterward, with the help of the CA Democratic Party leadership--as a lesson to others, I think. We tend to forget that almost all significant developments in our country these days are heavily influenced by Bushite spying, blackmail and dirty tricks. It's too difficult a reality to face.

We must--we really must--get rid of these election theft machines, as a first and essential step back toward democracy. If a NH recount helps do that, great. But do remember the stakes involved, from the point of view of our political establishment, both D and R, which will do everything in its power to keep the machines. Why should there be ANY uncertainty about the vote? Why, indeed? Keep asking that--and maybe we'll get our country back some day.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fjc]

29. If the count turns our differently,

how does that establish that Clinton mucked with the results?

[Laurab]

31. I don't think anyone would think Clinton mucked with the results.

Even she was surprised by her win. The machines are owned and operated by republicans, with proprietary software, as I understand it. They are worried about them getting an early start for the general election. I am, too. Those machines are way too easy to mess with, and even the losing candidates should be happy this is being done now.

I don't know it they'll find anything or not - they really should have locked up the ballots immediately after the vote, because they too can be messed with, but I'm happy that Diebold, Premier and their family of machines know that they are under scrutiny.

[Recursion]

36. I don't think anybody's saying the Clinton campaign tampered with the election

The allegations/speculations I've seen are that GOP Republicans and/or Diebold did it.

[kimmylavin]

14. Why do they have to call them "minor candidates"?

Can't they just say two candidates?

[Mithreal]

20. There have to be classes of candidates

in order to know who is acceptable to cast your vote for or have an opinion about, of course.

[kimmylavin]

24. Ah, yes...

I forgot.
Forgive me for going off script! :)

[Zorra]

32. It's the Corporate/MSM Caste System.

The more money you take from corporations, the more exposure you get from the MSM.

The more sponsorship you get from corporations, the higher your caste.

It's all very simple, and so totally un-American.

[Bunkie0913]

15. Election integrity

That is the issue. Both of these candidates know the cost and are willing to pay, not to win but to know that the game is fair for the other players (voters). Sounds like perhaps Albert Howard (R) is making the case on the behalf of Ron Paul. Maybe, Mr. Paul didn't want to muddy the waters as is his apparent stance on impeachment.

[Mithreal]

18. Is a hand count cheaper?

It would just be ironic if the hand count is cheaper than using the machines. Anyway, voting is sacred to a democracy, right. Down with the voting machines, bury 'em in Yucca mountain. They are as toxic to democracy as nuclear waste.

We might have too much dependence upon machines. I think I will go invent the prayerbot(TM), I bet it catches on. No need to waste time praying when prayerbot can do it for you.

There are some things machines shouldn't do.

[HooptieWagon]

25. It seems the $2000 is just a deposit

Full cost is yet to be determined. However, the recount won't begin until the full cost is paid.

Also, a clarification to the NH ballots - They are ALL paper ballots (not machine). However, some of the ballots are counted by hand, and some by machine.

[cyberpj]

28. Who does the actual physical hand recounting? Also,

this is from the article.

(I saw some posts that said a primary recount had never been done.)

"The last time New Hampshire did a statewide recount of the results of the presidential primary was in 1980."

Anyway -
who does the actual physical hand recounting?

[The Croquist]

34. Think of this as a test case

New Hampshire is a perfect place for this.

The polls were either way off or it was rigged.
The total number of votes is relatively small making a recount easier (500,000 total in both parties).
No candidate is going to contest the recount in court. They are still running in other states and that will be the kiss of death politically.
The difference was about 7,500 in the democratic primary and 13,000 in the republican primary
There are 10 months to do something if there is a significant difference.

First of all if you remember Florida 2000, people were fighting for single votes. In this election we are looking at a swing of 1%. 1% is 2,800 votes in the democratic primary and 2,300 in the republican primary. If the machines are off by a couple of percent in either party, in any direction, the hit bits the fan.

I don't think that any candidate was behind this but if the recount swings the election Either Hillary or McCain are in trouble. In an election you are not innocent until proven guilty.

[truthisfreedom]

38. There's a theory out there that rethug elements put Hillary in the winner's circle.

That theory also includes the fear that because the ballots were not secure between the primary and now, they may have been altered physically or replaced with ballots that reflect the manipulated electronic results.

So let's hope some sense can be made of this.

[garybeck]

39. This is good news! Preserve those ballots!

YEAH!

Count the ballots!