Apparently DK is asking for a recount in NH. So here's the question:

[onenote]

If the Democratic primary votes are recounted in New Hampshire and the recount confirms the accuracy of the reported vote, the folks that have been saying that the reported vote reflected a miscount will

[HughMoran]

1. Well, I'm going to grab some popcorn anyway

:popcorn:

[LakeSamish706]

2. Accept the results and we might have a level of comfort, based on the machines...

that are being used. I do understand that these same machines are also used in other States, and without this reassurance, I don't feel comfortable in these Primaries or in the GE for sure.

[althecat]

3. For consistency this thread ought to be banished too...

[HughMoran]

16. of course

as expected...

[madeline_con]

4. That's a toughie...

Maybe they'll find the offending machines, and the whole thing will be discounted and poo pooed like the last 2 Prez elections, and the Supreme Court will appoint the Huckster, or Mr. Perfect Hair, or the Rude Monkey. :puke:

spell edit

[K Gardner]

5. You really should be happy someone is standing up for you. Either that, or you

weren't around in 2000. I guess it's the popular thing to do around here to make fun of vote-counting. I hope the vote IS right in NH. I won't be so frightened at the prospect of November 2008 then. Transparency is not a bad thing.. we scream for it from our leaders. But we can't ask for it from Diebold without being called crazy? And this is supposed to be a Democratic board. Unreal.

[sandnsea]

9. Oh, that's right, you don't know

Infighting, outfighting, misinformation, fraud, holy crikey. There are very legitimate reasons Skinner is careful on letting Diebold threads get out of hand.

[K Gardner]

30. Actually, I agree.. which is why I don't understand why this "poll" was even started ..

My comment wasn't about threads or where they are or what happens to them, it was about why people don't support tranparency in elections :hi:

[onenote]

32. since I started the poll, I'll try to explain

I am not against transparency in elections and I'm glad that a recount is going to be done in NH. What I hoped to do with this poll is two things: one demonstrate that which probably doesn't really need to be demonstrated: that people believe that other people will never accept election results that come out differently from what they expect or wish.

More importantly, i actually did hope to trigger some discussion of the implications of a recount that confirms the reported vote. For example, while I expect (and hope) that is what happens, I am concerned that if the recorded vote and recount match here, it will undermine future efforts to call into question election results that don't match up with expectations or polling data. I don't know how to avoid that problem and if I have any qualms about the recount here (which as noted I generally support) its that by recounting a vote that there is little reason to think has been tampered with, we may harm efforts to convince people that other votes need to be recounted.

Finally, as I said elsewhere, if I'm wrong and the recount shows a serious miscount, no one will yell louder than I will for a complete and throrough investigation and accountability.

[K Gardner]

35. We're actually in agreement then :-) I also fear the syndrome of

The Boy Who Cried Wolf. But I can't ignore the irregularities of this primary. I won't dredge up the complexities.. anyone who has followed and studied the issues involved in exit polling and raw v weighted results is aware of this; however, I will say that one easy way to ensure we never have to worry about Diebold machines again is just to count. every. freakin. vote. By Hand. :-) :hi:

[sandnsea]

37. Everybody supports transparency

It just becomes impossible to discuss because it ends up the hand counts vs paper ballot vs paper audit vs mail vs not mail.....

[aquart]

10. When Obama wins a primary on those same machines....

I'll bet you won't see the smallest need for a recount.

So, do you trust the machines in SC?

[K Gardner]

19. Uh.. I'm supporting Edwards. Sorry. And no, I don't trust one single

Diebold machine in the country. This has nothing to do with who won what.. its the vote. When raw (NOT weighted or adjusted) exit polling is this far off for only .. oh, yanno what. Nevermind. I'm sorry I even responded to this thread.

Have fun.

[onenote]

12. who said I wasn't happy?

I am happy that someone is doing this. I expect it will ratify the reported vote, but if it doesn't, that's extremely important. However, I have to admit to some concern that if it confirms the recorded vote, it will probably will make it less likely that future votes will be challeged when they the polls and the recorded vote diverge.

[antiimperialist]

6. has any exit poll ever been this off? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

8. The exit poll was spot-on.

[LakeSamish706]

23. Care to elaborate? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

24. Here you go.

http://www.latimes.com/la-exitpoll-nh-graphic,0,7161708.htmlstory?coll=la-home-center

[HughMoran]

34. "The full exit poll shows a very close race on the Democratic side -- a one-point Obama lead."

The full exit poll shows a very close race on the Democratic side -- a one-point Obama lead. I have had so many bad experiences with exit polls in my four decades in this business that I am not going to invest heavily in this number. What it tells us is, we are going to have an interesting evening!

Live blog from 8PM on 1-8-08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/07/DI2008010702131.html?nav=hcmodule

[CyberPieHole]

7. they'll scream the recount was fixed while they gnash their teeth and wring their hands...

...well, at least I hope they will.:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

11. Before you vote, first check out this info on the recount of 2004 . . .

"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up," she wrote recently. "Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines. A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove" everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited," she warned.

In other words, they didn't really get a recount ---

And we just had a scandal recently where two women were "organizing" the votes that they
were selecting to be counted --- in order to forestall a full recount!!!

Where was that---?

[LakeSamish706]

13. By the look of your poll, I would guess that your voters here don't give a shit about...

the thought that 2000, 2004, and probably some of 2006 were stolen elections! Hey, why the hell don't we just flip a coin to see who is going to be in our elected body? This is so lame....

[onenote]

15. I don't interpret the results that way at all.

I just see people who believe other people will never be satisfied with an election result that doesn't meet their expectations and/or wishes.

[LakeSamish706]

17. No, you are talking specifically about NH... The problem is with the past elections...

ie: 2000, 2004, and probably part of 2006 (Where Dems should have had a much greater win).

[HughMoran]

20. .

never mind

[LakeSamish706]

25. .

[LakeSamish706]

18. And I do interpret it that way.. Not even thinking about NH, but what we will face in Nov. n/t

[Desertrose]

14. They need to know that someone is looking over their shoulder and

maybe we just aren't gonna take *it* anymore.

*It* being the ease in which election fraud has been allowed to just continue over the past 7+ years .

Good for DK. Good for us!

DR

[Texas_Kat]

21. I think DK should spend the next 2 weeks standing next to the tabulators

watching them count the votes. It would be a productive use of his time.

Then they can all yell at him for rigging the results when they come out the same.

[ORDagnabbit]

22. why are people scared of transparent and verifiable elections?

[onenote]

26. I'm not.

I'm glad DK is doing what he's doing. I am a bit concerned about what happens if, as I expect, it turns out the recorded vote is accurate. I have a feeling its not going to be pretty. I also worry about its impact on future elections where the results diverge from polls/expectations.

And, to be clear, if the results do show that something went astray in the counting of the ballots, I will be calling as loudly as anyone for a complete investigation and accountability. I will not, however, be leaping to assumptions as to who or what caused the count to go astray. Again, based on what I've seen here lately, I fear that others will take a different approach.

[kster]

27. If Dennis Kucinich gets a FULL Hand Count of ALL the Paper Ballots

I will congratulate the winner, but I will keep pushing to have the secret vote counting machines thrown in the river, and to have ALL Paper Ballots, Hand Counted in ALL future elections in the first place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x491816

K&R

[2rth2pwr]

38. Hand counting is the easiest to manipulate.

How can you trust all the people who are hired to count without bias or ill intent, can you trust all the tabulators enough so that there isn't any funny business with erasers or missing ballots?

[cascadiance]

47. Retail fraud is HARDER to do than electronic election fraud...

Retail fraud (trying to hand alter many different printed ballots) leaves a bigger trail of crumbs for someone investigating it, and also necessarily involves the need for more people to be involved too.

If someone feels that they won't have to use retail fraud to cover up election fraud, because people are too dismissive of abnormal results and don't want to pursue investigating it, then perhaps election fraud will be more likely to happen. But I wouldn't be surprised if we go through with this recount that there might be a fallback plan in place by any fraudsters that might have been at work here to try and cover their tracks with retail fraud. If that's their plan, then all the more reason to do a recount, if it will force them to do this sort of coverup, which will have them more likely get caught, and having a more concrete plan to do manual recounts will also be a disincentive for others to try election fraud too.

[fadedrose]

28. Make a fuss

The bigger the fuss the less likely there would be more cheating. Too many people watching. Even if the election was on the up-and-up, those who might cheat in the future will think twice if they thought that the public was getting too wise.

[Capn Sunshine]

29. Interesting

But people obsessing about this seem to overlook two important things: Obama got the same % of votes that all 13 (or however many there were) polling groups predicted within an acceptable MOE. What our campaign overlooked was the significant % of voters who claimed they were still undecided or not sure about their candidate.A classic rookie mistake. It's not a stretch to see that squishy support ( Especially Edwards) broke towards Hillary. We're talking about less than 10,000 votes. So personally I don't see a lot of potential for fraud there. Obama did however do significantly better in the exurban and rural areas, the exact opposite of Roves lying piece of Murdoch supported tripe in todays Murdoch Street Journal..

If there were a conspiracy it would be in them moving up the primary date so the Colleges were still not in session, or I guarantee Obama would have mopped the floor with everyone.

[RiverStone]

31. Your missing the real issue

It's not about the count --- its NOT about who won or sour grapes.

It is about removing Diebold from our election process. 81% of all NH's vote were counted by Diebold electronic voting machines.

All we want is a transparent and accountable election.

This is not about Hillary winning.

It is about having a fair election for whom ever is running.

My choice: shit can Diebold!

Thats the real issue here.

[onenote]

33. and here is my concern

While I am happy enough that the recount will occur in NH and thus, I would hope, resolve the quesiton of whether the recorded vote was accurate, if it does turn out that the recorded vote was accurate, doesn't that undercut future efforts to show that there is a problem with Diebold counting?

[cascadiance]

45. I think an explanation still needs to be made why the exit polls were so different!

Hopefully a recount will reveal one way or the other why this discrepancy existed. If there's a logical reason for that, and everyone can accept it, then we can know more of how to examine the results of future election results to know when a recount should be made or not. If the reasons for this discrepancy can be isolated without a recount through other means, perhaps we can employ those same means in future elections before a recount is engaged, to help us isolate fraud or other explanations for similar statistical anomalies.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Make teh popcorn, because there's 48 more states...

to go, and 48 more recounts to scream for.

And then one big honkin' one.

(Go Dennis-- count every fucking vote yourself, 'cause you know your buddies screaming for the recounts won't be there to help.)

[mhatrw]

39. And what will the type of people who post pro-machine count nonsense do?

Other than tell us to "Get over it" as usual?

[galloglas]

40. A recount can

confirm an error or fraud. It cannot prove that the election was not tampered with.

No one "loses" if there is a recount. The main question is whether a recount alone is sufficient scrutiny to apply to the question at hand.

[yodermon]

41. The ones that were "screaming" will keep screaming.

The ones using a normal speaking voice will move on.

[Samantha]

42. Where's the qualifier

assuming the Supreme Court does not halt the recount and it is accomplished to its logical end....

[mirrera]

43. That depends on if the re-count is fixed. Remember Ohio...people jailed-no tinfoil needed.n/t

[cascadiance]

44. How about a fourth option....

"Accept the results, if it really DOES confirm the vote, and have a good explanation why there was the big discrepancy between exit polls and this vote." Perhaps the exit polls need investigation as well.

The conclusion I would take away from this, whether or not a problem is found is that when statistical anomalies do exhibit themselves, anyone who is thinking of engaging in election fraud will know that these anomalies WILL BE investigated and NOT ignored! That can only help us from preventing election fraud in November. Ignoring these problems when they come up will only embolden the "election fraud terrorists", as some might say!

[New Earth]

46. It doesn't *necessarily* mean it was 'fixed'

but that the machines are NOT RELIABLE, not just regarding intentional fraud, but error. That should be the lesson in this all...