To 'regular' ER posters....

[New Earth]

what do you think about NH last night? I really want to know what people in *this* forum think, without GD and GDP running up in here about sour grapes and sore losers.

I honestly think it seems suspicious and there is a gut feeling in my stomach that it doesn't matter, cuz how soon and what can anyone do something about it? :shrug:

[truckin]

1. My personal opinion is that we need audits of every race counted

by scanners. If scanners are not audited they are little better than DREs.

[Stevepol]

9. Totally agree. Without audits electronic voting means you don't have a democracy.

2=2 still =s 4

[mod mom]

23. Amen to that! This background on LHS leaves me w/o confidence:

In last week’s program LHS President John Silvestro admitted his staff violated Connecticut security protocols during the 2006 election. Memory cards were swapped by LHS staff members who saw protocols from the State indicating they were not to touch machines. Still, Silvestro touts the benefits of privatizing Connecticut’s election to his company that sells Diebold products. He said: ‘–I feel very confident in the fact that the process itself is better left in the private venue than it is in the public venue when I see the influence that each political party can put on people and make things happen in this country, whether right or wrong. I mean if you think about it. I would ask you the same way. Would you like politically connected people to both parties to be in charge of running the process of creating voting machines, counting ballots, and you know, would you like that? I don’t know.’

Silvestro attended an August meeting to correct security problems his staff caused when they swapped memory cards in violation of the Secretary of State’s protocols. The problem would be solved, he offers, by automatically auditing any machine that fails during a vote. Will his ideas work? And even if they are good solutions, what should we make of his role in providing Connecticut elections?

Throughout our year long investigation LHS staff members have tended to say things that reveal either confusion about State protocols or an unwillingness to accept direction from the Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz. In this comment from 2006 LHS Director of Sales and Marketing, Ken Hajjar, admits he saw the written protocol from Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz indicating he was not to handle voting machines or obviously memory cards.

-snip
http://talknationradio.com/?p=101

He also said, “I feel very confident that the process itself is better left in the private thing than it is in the public venue when I see the influence that each political party can put on people and make things happen in this country whether right or wrong, I mean if you think about it and I’d ask you the same way. Would you like politically connected people to vote parties, to be in charge of running you know the process of creating voting machines, counting ballots and you know would you like that? I don’t know.”

Silvestro has been a politician for years in the town of Londonderry New Hampshire where they use the voting machines his company sells. The SEEC will have to evaluate the twin histories of Diebold and LHS Associates, to fully understand their behavior under contract with Connecticut. Perhaps the SEEC can assist poll workers who will now have to identify just which protocols the state intends to have on site during upcoming elections.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/general_news/connecticuts_elections_are_sti.php

Jeffrey Dean, Senior Vice President of Diebold, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, of planting back doors in his software, and of using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years.” While heading up the development of Diebold’s GEMS controversial central compiler software source code at Global Election Systems (later, purchased by Diebold, and renamed Diebold Election Systems), convicted felon, Jeffrey Dean, worked in association with John Silvestro, Owner and CEO of LHS Associates of Methuen, MA, which maintains, pre-programs and configures the voting machines and memory cards of five New England States, including New Hampshire.*

· Diebold Election Systems is under tremendous scrutiny nationwide for sales of voting systems proven to be highly vulnerable and easily hackable by anyone from a teenager to a terrorist. Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, recently resigned, Diebold shareholders and numerous others have filed suit, and contracts for Diebold voting systems sales and services are in question, and being canceled, throughout the country.

· According to Peter Phillips, Director of Project Censored,“Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the software security in their voting machines.”

-snip
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2420

[Warpy]

2. I think there were a lot of GOP leaning "Indies"

voting in the Democratic primary and that's more than just a gut feeling. Indies are 45% of the votes in NH, and that state tends GOP more often than not since so much of it is populated by tax whiners who fled Mass.

Because of that I fully expected Clinton to take that state. I'm not surprised Obama was within 2% of her. I am not surprised that Edwards, the man who scares stingy conservatives the most, came in such a distant third.

So, no nothing surprised me and no, I don't think it means all that much in the grand scheme of the universe.

Ask me again after Super Tuesday.

[PATRICK]

4. Things happened

pretty much as predicted despite the Iowa hype. Minus a scandal or a more impressive state with a more ordinary primary all you can get is a quick short bounce- which Obama did- which quickly sinks or can be just as quickly countered- which it was without any of the details having much of a difference, especially in a short time when NH has been been mined and settled for some time.

The masses don't move in a short time for anything except very major considerations, try as anyone might to shout them into a stampede. People are ignoring meanwhile the simple facts that the voting machines are insecure, the corporate anything stinks but you can't suggest that even to two leading candidates who would be horrified at the suggestion. Actually these early states have been set in concrete by strong campaigns for some time just so they won't get swamped- at least. Edwards' hope was that someone would give and like 2004, fatal pattern, he'd suddenly see some daylight- despite his tiff with corporate media. His last best hope was that something would crack in Iowa but basically the two rivals muscled in without suffering much loss.

Now, in a three-way still, he is still waiting for one to crack. That is pretty necessary since there is unlikely to end up with a brokered convention or that it would go to numero 3. He needs to win states or consistently be numero 2 while the other seesaw themselves to ruin. Obama is a newbie with newbie weaknesses but hard to attack on message with stark enough differences to quickly win the masses. Clinton can't escape her cracked vulnerability but by the numbers and by her defenses she is too formidable to overwhelm in time- by Edwards alone. Splitting the so-called anti-Hillary vote seems like a paradox that helps her no matter if you agree with it or not. Despite the media bias, or because of it, the likeliest structural scenario calls for an Obama challenge to the still dominant Clinton and Edwards and his agenda, better in every way that really counts(America has ceased being based on reality) is locked in a positon he is far better than, small consolation when the votes are counted.

Party regulars are likely heading to their liquor cabinets at this moment hoping the people can sort this out and not leave them in a shambles they tried to rig against by not trusting the people in the first place.

[EFerrari]

3. If we don't know that the election was clean, it wasn't. Period.

It matters to me that I can't know. :shrug:

[Febble]

13. Yup.

That can't be said often enough.

[Tuesday_Morning]

26. amen to that.

[helderheid]

34. what you said

[Melissa G]

5. I'm following discussions on another couple of sites

There are things that look irregular that I am waiting to see verified. Am I concerned? Sure. LHS doing the counting and programming is enough all by itself to warrant my concern.

We clearly don't have a transparent process here that folks have confidence in. If we did, we could just say OK, stop. There is a whole bunch of concern. We have a secure process that we have confidence in. We have a way to confirm that each vote was counted as cast.
Everyone just be quiet while we double check. And then we could double check and be confident.
With LHS involved we don't have that confidence. :shrug: Hi Faye! :hi:

[philly_bob]

7. I already started talking about discrepancies before I saw your "quiet."

It was in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x488942

But I'll join you in saying Double-check and don't leap to conclusions.

If voting machine manipulation occurs, there will eventually be one election that provides the smoking gun. Maybe New Hampshire.

There was also a ballot on a proposition for voting reform in Ohio in -- when? 2005? couldn't Google it, sorry -- when Blackwell was still in charge that was highly suspicious.

[Melissa G]

8. I'm not at all suggesting we be 'quiet' because we do NOT have a system

that we can rely on. If we DID have a system we could trust, THEN we could be quiet. Unfortunately, we make all this noise Because we DON"T have a system we can easily trust and verify. Hence we make unhappy distrustful racket. I personally am not yet sure loud noise is warranted, so I am personally holding my noise down to a small concerned growl for the moment. Thanks for your research.

[philly_bob]

11. Misinterpreted you. Thought you were asking to hold off until facts on NH

were known.

Anyway, <GROWLING> with you.

[kster]

6. We have been fighting for Paper Ballots,

so if there is any doubt in an election, we can hand count those ballots.

Hand Count all the Paper Ballots, this way we know for sure.

The Democratic Candidates, winners and losers need to come forward and do this for all of us, and they need to do it now!

[philly_bob]

10. Early Ron Paul story concentrates on "voter fraud" not machine fraud.

One interesting aspect of the reports of vote fiddling for Clinton and against Paul was the possibility of an alliance between all Dems -- I'm sure HRC wouldn't approve of election machine fraud -- and the Ron Paul people. But here's a Paul item that is mainly about "voter fraud." Damn.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/23647

Later commenters to the above story are arguing about "voter fraud" vs. "voting machine fraud."

Ron Paul supporters started getting together funds for a recount.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/23705

Interesting developments.

(Edited to correct Clinton reference and update)

[Stevepol]

18. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Paul's votes were siphoned off for Hillary.

I wouldn't be surprised at anything to be honest.

If Paul's supporters scream for a recount more power to them.

There can't be too many recounts in my opinion, and it doesn't matter who is the chief instigator of the recounts. If the Dems want to keep their heads in the sand, then let the other candidates foot the bill.

[althecat]

12. I want a recount but consider it possible that NH is just way too over polled

Specifically.

NH was by far the most out - biggest exit poll discrepancy - in the 2004 election. There was a recount of sorts which was inconclusive from recollection.

For a bunch of reasons voters in NH probably get far too many phone calls from pollsters.

Why this would favour Obama in the polls but not on the day is anyones guess. Maybe more conservative voters are more likely to hang up on pollsters than people caught up in the Obamanon.

However I see no reason in principle to trust diebold and see every reason to make a loud noise and complain as much as possible now at the beginning of the primary season because I fully expect this primary to be rigged in other states even if it wasn't in NH.

[riqster]

14. Well, a state like NH is small enough to go to hand-counted paper if need be

...addressing your last point first. Also, Ohio's SOS (bless her) has decreed that each and every voter have the right to a paper ballot if they request it, and that it be counted on ELECTION DAY along with the machine totals. No more Blackwellian 'not important enough to count' crap.

So, yes, if we can show cause for concern, there's time for a fair few bandaids. More importantly, it puts the fraudistas on notice that they WILL be audited, so they'll have to back way off.

What do I think happened? The fact that that question is even relevant scares the crap out of me. The fact that my opinion is likely the best information anyone can get is cause for shitting concrete blocks.

We need an audit, and NH is the best place. 100% voter-marked paper ballots, so the only problems (apart from registration) are with the Diebold tabulators.

[stillcool]

15. I haven't been hanging out...

here for quite a while. Shocking that the first election of this season finds me running back. I am baffled by the fact that I seem to be surprised. I'm kind of hoping with these huge turnouts..and with the youth vote...one of these states will find themselves in need of some answers.

[Yellow Horse]

16. Yo, Faye, good to see ya' again. Maybe it's.......ELECTION FRAUD!

;-)

[mod mom]

30. lol. Whenever the term voter fraud and election fraud are misused, It's Faye who comes

to mind!

[New Earth]

35. I don't even have to correct people anymore

everyone else does it for me now :shrug:

edit: nevermind, just had to correct someone :/

[mod mom]

36. see...we still need you ;)

[bleever]

17. I don't think Hillary "stole" the primary, and I think there are logical

reasons that the polls would be out of date when so much movement happened in the last 2 or 3 days.

But I can't believe Diebold still has a role, and elections are still far from transparent and verifiable.

And I worry that this will muddy the waters about where election fraud is and isn't perpetrated.


:hi: Faye!

[yowzayowzayowza]

19. "NH last night?"

I think the CT hair-trigger makez us look like idiotz.

[New Earth]

20. ?

[Patsy Stone]

21. I don't feel it this time.

I blame the high percentages of Dems with low candidate loyalty (for either Edwards or Obama), the undecideds, and the Independents splitting between Obama and McCain. This, along with all of the Hillary hoopla during the days before the election contributed to more Dems turning out for Hillary (because I don't think it was Republicans or many Independents).

In general, she lost overall points from her days of inevitability high, so if Obama did indeed gain the big mo from Iowa, then Hillary got a bit of a surge from the press of the day before, that would do it.

That having been said: Kill the machines.

:hi:

[Melissa G]

22. Kill the Machines indeed!!!

It bears repeating! Hi Pats! :hi:

[Patsy Stone]

24. Hi, Melissa!

Happy Election Year! :hi:

Maybe Ron Paul could do something good with that money after all and ask for a recount: :)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_district_admits.htm

[Melissa G]

25. I'm worried about a secure chain of custody in a recount,

but maybe some smart folks around here can figure some good, safe, representative precincts to sample. :hi:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x489048

[Patsy Stone]

38. I hope they can

Because I am interested in the results. If for no other reason than it will be interesting to see.

By "safe" do you mean precincts with a verifiable custody chain?

[Melissa G]

39. There is the LHS factor and I read there is not a good citizen chain of custody

I don't have as many details on this as I would like. I was hoping a knowledgeable NH DUer would enlighten us about any known pitfalls.

[bleever]

27. And I will add this: if somebody wanted to mess with the totals,

they could. Even if they were from a different party. Wouldn't that be oh so clever.

[autorank]

28. The lust for power turns into a Jones and then it's chaos.

:hi:

[New Earth]

29. thanks everyone for your answers so far.

just wanted to know how people here felt. Good to see everyone by the way :hi:

What some people need to realize is that it's a GOOD thing people are concerned about this. At least we are not asleep, trusting in everything that happens without questioning it, and I think people have a damned good reason to question the results of ANY election after everything that's happened in them ESPECIALLY from 2000 on.

What makes me frustrated is people saying it's the "Obamabots" blaming fraud for this. Uh, no. I'm a KUCINICHBOT and I don't care who the hell won, it wasn't my guy, so ALL THESE PRIMARIES ARE RIGGED!!!!!!!111111 I'M JUST SOUR GRAPES!!!!11


:D

[nashville_brook]

31. the NH primary raises questions, but the response here at DU raises even more.

the emerged meme is that "only losers question election integrity."

what is most shocking about e-vote manipulation is that ANYONE can do it for any reason. Clinton supporters are up in arms, as if the Obama people are accusing their candidate of election rigging. Anyone with any affiliation can hack these machines for any reason. anyone can switch cards. anyone can use a PDA. it could be a business interest. a republican. or yes, even a democrat or Clinton supporter. the problem with these machines is that we have no assurance of integrity (other than exit polling) and no way to trace manipulation. THE MACHINES HAVE TO GO.

what should concern everyone is that the only votes that look funny are Hillary's 5% lead on Diebold machines in contradiction of many exit and pre-polls.

the problem that we're seeing now is the result of not having transparency, integrity and confidence in the vote -- and no one in ERD should feel like a leper for bringing this issue up. but here we are, having the same damn arguments we've had for 4 years and being made to feel like outcasts for demanding better of our system. i don't give a damn who won. i care plenty that we're likely going to see manipulation and unrest continue until something is done.

what's most disappointing to me is that the supposed "winners" are absolutely FINE with the contradictions and funny business. that makes them (and us as DU'ers??) no better than Republicans -- when the alleged fraud swings in our favor, then it's "good" fraud.

i'm disgusted, but not surprised by what i've read here since tuesday and especially yesterday. lets not forget that the term "tin foil hat" came into usage here with regard to election issues as a weapon to shut us up -- and that was when the manipulation favored the Rethugs. i have the sick feeling that we are becoming what we behold.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. be the change you want to see

what should concern everyone is that the only votes that look funny are Hillary's 5% lead on Diebold machines in contradiction of many exit and pre-polls.

But those votes don't "look funny" if considered in geographic context. That was the point of the OP.

In order to avoid people's connecting election integrity with half-baked allegations, it would be helpful to stop connecting election integrity with half-baked allegations.

It's just common sense.

[EFerrari]

40. Have you yet seem a hord of Obama supporters using this on Clinton?

All I've seen is us ER types and an incoming invective tsunami that we somehow get nailed for.

It's f#cking chilling. Or, it would be without this rhino skin.

All I keep thinking is, I'm so grateful to all of you who have answered questions and explained and repeated for me for these three years. Because I don't feel crazy in the least today for being concerned and for seeing problems or for asking questions. "For once, then, something."

Thank you.

[helderheid]

33. hey Faye!

:hi:

[emlev]

37. The questions about it create opportunity

for the Dem candidates each to show us that they will pursue investigation and remedies where necessary. Here's my article about that. Let's use this situation to make election integrity and the need for hardy pursuit of election justice a significant campaign issue.