No Recount Please-By Nancy Tobi

[kpete]

No Recount Please
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2008-01-11 05:37. Elections
By Nancy Tobi

I am telling everyone who asks to beg Paul and others to NOT request a recount. I would beg you to urge everyone to STAND DOWN from this strategy. It is a trap. Use all your influence to inform the Paul and Kucinich campaigns, which are being targeted to carry this out, to please NOT pursue the recount this year. I can not stress enough how important it is they do NOT have a recount.
............

You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness.

And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours.

NO RECOUNT PLEASE

In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight. We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged, which we will never know, but if it was, don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH?

No. It is time to take control. We want accountability and change. We get this NOT from a recount, but from an investigation. We need questions asked and answered, and changes made so we have a clean election in NH in November.

more at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30018

[droidamus2]

1. Not a bad idea

This is a good point. Let's take it a step further and, if they can ever get the elections commission working again, set a on-going investigation with computer and election experts to look into the next few elections using computerized voting. I mean look at every state and every system. Do spot, unannounced recounts not for official purposes but just to verify the effectiveness of the machines. That way if people are gaming the system they won't know when and where the verification is being done and it will be very difficult for them to implement 'Plan B'. Included in the investigations should be at least the following questions

1. When applicable why a big discrepancy between pre-election and/or exit polls and the final count?
2. What were the problems (server crashes, inordinate numbers of printers jamming, machines changing votes or not allowing the choice the voter wants, etc) and what were the actual causes?
3. Was there any unexpected or illegal access to the servers or voting machines once voting start ie.
technicians changing memory cards or having access to machines when they should have access?
4. Why differences between areas with paper ballot counts and machine counts?

All answers should be made clear and available to the public. Anybody objecting to the findings should not be able to stop their release but only challenge them after the fact and no interfering by the current administration or Congress to stop release.

[cyclezealot]

2. So we are saying Gardner might be a part of some cabal.

Not that it isn't possible. But why. Is not Gardner a Democrat. Why would he be protective of Diebolt. Just asking questions. If Diebolt is being protected, the chain of custody problem is a problem. Who would investigate. ?

[mod mom]

9. No one said Gardner is part of some cabal. Voting rights activists believe procedures should be in

place to assure ALL voters, regardless of party, that their votes will be counted. Ballots are thrown n boxes and shipped off to warehouses. SOS Gardner is not sitting guard to see no post election tampering occurred.

[cyclezealot]

11. Just askin.

Did not Democratic Secretary of State Gardner testify in General Assembly as to how worthy the system is, following the California decertification. ? Not in the least differing with you on the subject of safe voting procedures.

[mod mom]

23. Sorry, after being accused of being an irrational Obama supporter, I wanted to make

sure the point that even with Dem SOS's the chain of custody may still be an issue.

I IN NO WAY MEAN TO IMPLY THAT OBAMA SUPPORTER ARE IRRATIONAL. I LIKE SEN OBAMA AND WILL WORK/VOTE FOR HIM IF HE IS THE NOMINEE, BUT AT THIS POINT I AM SUPPORTING (PROUDLY) JOHN EDWARDS. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT HOW ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATES WERE QUICKLY LABELED SOUR GRAPE OBAMA SUPPORTERS-WRONGLY!

[riqster]

3. Short-sighted

A recount can uncover the irregularities that will trigger an investigation. No recount, no basis for an investigation.

[mod mom]

5. They lost the ballot chain of custody. W/O a secure COC no assurances possible.

[riqster]

7. Nothing's perfect, but

...as it currently stands, insisting on an all-or-nothing, pure and complete investigation means nothing will happen. All of the Dems who have suddenly adopted Rovian rhetoric are proof of that. "Show me the proof before I do anything" is the meme of the moment.

ANY activity that provides quantified data to supplant purely hypothetical explanations is a good thing. If nothing else, the COC issue needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day, because it is too often overlooked.

[mod mom]

8. I believe Ms Tobi is suggesting that recounts need to occur before losing sight-

at the precinct level. She doesn't want to give these machine vendors a door to manipulate ballots and come back with false assurances that they are safe. Look forward with this information. We know by testing the the decertification process that the machines can't be trusted. If we know the machines will be used, have a team of folks ready to go immediately before the chain of custody is broken.

[riqster]

10. Agreed. But her title slams the door on any action in the current circumstance.

That is my objection. Doing nothing is not an option.

[mod mom]

13. She is in favor of investigation and LOOKING FORWARD. This is 1 small primary,

better to lose this, than the argument that the machines counting is unsafe. (Wouldn't the private vendors love that?)

I too would love to know the truth about NH, but sometimes we have to be careful about opening a can of worms. What IF the recount is manipulated, results appear to be squeaky clean and the press seizes upon it, (as only they can do) and the machines are given a clean bill of health. IF we look to the future and are ready before losing a chain of custody, then we have proof and assurances that there has been no tampering.

[riqster]

15. There's always a reason not to take action

...and I am not discounting hers or yours. But too many people have been waiting for too long for a perfect opportunity, and elections are being rigged the while. There will never be a situation free of 'what-if's.

There is a minefield that we MUST clear. It might be best to wait until a high-tech armored vehicle comes along on some distant future date, but it's been promised repeatedly and never arrived. So let's stand well back and start shooting at the mines to at least clear some path.

The alternative to acting is cower in our foxholes until some savior comes along and magically rescues us. We've done that for years now, and things have only gotten worse.

[stillcool]

17. I don't understand this...

Why is it always about the outcome, and not about the process? Why would anyone "Not" want to attempt to verify election results?

[JMDEM]

30. But you can't do that until...

Someone challenges the election. At least under NH law. Bummer.

[philly_bob]

4. Confusing. She wants investigation, not recount?

I want an investigation of voting machinery too. But I don't see Tobi's plan for "taking control" -- for getting an investigation in NH. And the deadline for a NH recount filing is running out.

She's right about the chain of custody issues, of course. Absolutely. So maybe sinister forces had a PLAN B to align paper ballots with scanned ballots. Maybe not. Maybe they didn't do a good job. Maybe they'll get caught trying to align scanner vote and paper vote.

Anyway, it's not as if there's a maximum number of recounts. If things smell fishy, we can recount every primary election, as a strategy to decertify scanning machines. (Paperless voting machines -- Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) -- have already been proven to be unreliable, to most people's satisfaction.)

And it's not as if a recount precludes an investigation.

Anyway, I'm thoroughly confused. I'm not going to be asking Kucinich or Paul to call off a recount unless Tobi's puzzling call is more thoroughly explained.

My ruling principle is transparency -- and the more information we get the better. A recount gets us information.

(Updated to note risk of aligning scanner & paper vote)

[deminks]

6. Is the concern here a recount using the machines vs a recount counting the actual ballots?nt

[Junkdrawer]

12. The concern is that cheaters, with the luxury of time and extra ballots...

will simply change a sufficient number of ballots to insure that the manual and machine counts match.

[deminks]

14. Thanks.

[Bonn1997]

16. Good points

I've become more and more concerned about how much a recount could hurt the cause for election reform if it matched the reported votes and I'd be shocked if Diebold didn't have a plan B to make a recount work out in NH.

Here's an issue that no one is discussing: Shouldn't OBAMA be the one to request the recount? It's his primary to win or lose. He must be weighing the issues himself right now. Maybe he's decided that the war is too important for him to pick the wrong battle.

[JMDEM]

31. If you want to know why Obama didn't challenge,

Just step into GD right now. There's a literal war going on over this issue. I bet that Obama would lose many fence sitting voters trying to decide between him and Clinton if he had challenged.

[truckin]

18. I disagree. I do not believe that there is someone who is rigging

the election to the level of detail where that person knows the exact outcome and has all the ballots ready to agree with that outcome. The sooner the recount takes place the better. Chain of custody will also have to be looked at but as long as the recount is done quickly, it should be done.

[kster]

21. Its all a sales game to the corporate politicians. They

are in control of the vote counting machines, our ballots and the media, and they aim to keep it that way.

By leading us into this recount, they have there sales pitch. "nothing wrong with machine counting" "we don't need paper ballots" so on and so forth. in other words they take one step forward on the promotion of their secret vote counting machines and we take two steps back.

We need to first whittle away at all that control, then proceed.

Otherwise we are whistling dixie. B-)

[kster]

19. I agree CALL IT OFF!! K&R.nt

[althecat]

26. Are you sure about that Kster..... there are some complex competing interests here.

[kster]

32. Well, yes, if these corporate toadies

allow our votes to be counted in secret in the first place, they are not with us THEY ARE AGAINST US. If these candidates haven't seen all the problems associated with these machines, their head is in the sand, or they are directly involved in this scam and if any of this is true which one or the other has to be, then none of them deserve to be president of our America.

I just about had enough of the SILENCE from this crew. :)

[Kip Humphrey]

42. I agree... The ER movement holds the greatest risk here. I ask you,

shall we risk everything over NH and risk having little or no credibility and public support with which to contest the November general election in case of vote count irregularities? Recall New Hampshire in 2004,the state with the largest vote/exit poll diversion (8%): Nader, recount, no problems.

I have to expect the same outcome this time. Therefore, if we stake our claim and lose,

• Rising public suspicion of our electronic voting systems will rapidly fade
  
• Dennis Kucinich will be marginalized to extinction
  
• We will lose our effectiveness challenging any reported vote totals in the November general election

I mean, who will listen to us then?

At this point, the best strategy here is for Dennis to take his challenge just so far then ease back: A sort of warning shot across the bow of whoever is behind the vote shifting (a lurking pathological democracy arsonist, no doubt!). We should continue monitoring the elections, gathering, compiling, and disseminating evidence of any election irregularities - doing all we can to keep that evidence before the eyes of the electorate. Let's not jeopardize everything for a NH primary. It's protecting the general election that's most important and we need to reserve our arsenal for that, should it be needed.

[cloudythescribbler]

20. The logic is flawed: No recount, no investigation; she says NO RECOUNT, Yes investigation

The best available answer NOW is recount WITH critique, AND investigation, AND change the policy. The notion of a recount being 'dangerous' because they would provide a false sense of security seems to me to be too clever by half

[dailykoff]

36. Yes.

Who is she anyway? She could simply be a Clinton supporter and of course the CIA is not exactly above infiltrating "terrorist" organizations.

[2rth2pwr]

22. If the recount comes back and validates the original count

this will be used as an example for the next time calls are made that there was something fishy.

They will say see, the count was right all along! What is your problem, why do you scream for a recount just because you lost?

This is aimed at the Presidential election.

[althecat]

25. IMO There is a more important principle at stake.... the right to have the votes counted properly.

To date there has not been a single successful recount as a result of suspicions about an election result.

Achieving one is a vital objective.

Issues around the necessity of BEING ABLE TO RECOUNT votes and the foolishness of allowing SECRET PRIVATE SOFTWARE exclusive inalienable rights to count votes rest are necessarily the basis of much of what the Election Reform movement is calling for.

In addition.

Each time a recount is sought, achieved and performed the ER movement learns more about the pitfalls and problems around them and around the legal framework in which they are framed.

[K Gardner]

27. Are there any safeguards, sample recounts, etc., in place in other states

with upcoming primaries? S. Carolina is All Diebold Touch Screen, if I understand correctly.

And some states have automatic sample recounts, like California? But not all. Is there a link or place where I can go to look at what procedures and what safeguards are in place in what states?

[althecat]

28. There has never been an actual hand recount of any significnat election

.. that I know of.

As you know they tried in Florida in 2000. The Supreme Court shut it down.

There are often small recounts - but these are mostly triggered by automatic rules on very close elections. In practice this usually that means putting the ballots through the optical scan machines again - not recounting by hand.

In NH in 2004 there was a limited recount of some precincts and nothing was found. We need a full one to do this properly.

In Ohio in 2005 the recount was fraudulently undermined and people are now in jail.

Someone may be able to fill in some more detail.

[K Gardner]

29. Thank you :-)

[althecat]

24. I have considerable sympathy with Nancy Tobi's concerns...

She is there. She has the experience of 2004 to learn from.

However it seems that the recount is going to proceed and in that case we need to heed Nancy's warning and organise to prevent the recount from being hijacked.

We should also think very closely about what we leared in Ohio's recount.

I would suggest Cliff Arnebeck and other experienced recounters from Ohio be included in the teams planning, supervising and conducting this recount.

Off the top of my head I can think of several pieces of advice for those conducting this recount.

1. To the candidates be very very very very very careful about who you pick to lead and manage your recount operation. Do very widespread checking of their background and ask a range of members of the ER movement about their bona fides BEFORE YOU APPOINT THEM. YOU WILL BE CONFUSED BUT THAT IS INEVITABLE.

If there is one thing I have learned over the past 5.5 years of this debate is that there are an awful lot of people involved in the ER movement who cannot necessarily be trusted. There are people who call themselves election protectors who are not.

2. Secondly... to the candidates iuf it seems to be too easy then you are probably being led down the garden path - getting up close and personal and counting all of New Hampshire's ballots by hand will not be easy. There will be obstacles and there will be a bunch of highly motivated people interfering (with a wide range of motivations). If it seems too easy then it probably is.

Fascinating watching this from afar.

Good Luck.

[galloglas]

40. Ultimate ER truth in just TWO sentences !!

QUOTE:

If there is one thing I have learned over the past 5.5 years of this debate is that there are an awful lot of people involved in the ER movement who cannot necessarily be trusted. There are people who call themselves election protectors who are not.

Bulls-Eye, Al! Indeed.

When everyone understands the above, we may all move forward safely. The first rank of the Enemy is within, and keeping, the gates.

[pauldp]

33. Seems a new line needs to be added to the old battle cry for Paper Ballots...

that is a chain of custody controlled by the citizens.

We may need some time to work on the protest chant for that one.

[althecat]

43. lol

[bleever]

34. Fifth rec, for better or worse, because

we have to examine all these things.

[SnoopDog]

35. So... we never question anything - right?

We can't sit on our asses forever... we always have to question...

[dailykoff]

37. This makes absolutely zero sense.

Take control by not requesting a recount? Demand accountability by not asking for it? Does she work for Carville or the CIA?

[garybeck]

38. I totally disasgree with this. There is nothing to lose.

Count the ballots!

[galloglas]

39. Nancy Tobi claims ... "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

This is my response, on peoplecount (the national HCPBnow list), to Nancy Tobi's plea.

I repost this message here for the benefit of the readers at DU, as Nancy's request/demand is being systematically echoed around the 'Net by the usual "Chicken Little" chorus, all of them wailing "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

So, if you wish to avoid being Henny-Penny, Turkey-Lurkey, or Ducky-Lucky, please BEWARE !. The forgoing, as you will recall, are aided by the helpful Foxy Loxy was said "We will run. We will run into my den, and I will tell the king."

But, as you will recall,
"They ran into Foxy Loxy's den,
But they did not come out again!"



ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO PEOPLECOUNT:

I think it is time to be exceedingly careful what we do, or choose not to do. The plea from Nancy Tobi seems to me a familiar tune which we may have heard before.

I forget the title, the lyrics and the verses, but the last line of the chorus always goes,

"Or you'll take the whole movement off a cliff with you."

I remember this recently being sung about the 50 state lawsuit (among other things) with a familiar chorus of voices chiming in about "half-assed lawsuits".

Whatever is wrong in NH, it is not the because of the actions of peoplecount, or others who are for HCPBnow. So why are we being called upon to heed the words of someone who has twice withdrawn from the peoplecount list because they were never in agreement with the peoplecount precepts to begin with.

If the candidates themselves wish to push this, why should they not do so?

The advice below seems eerily like the advice given to Al Gore in 2000, and the advice which John Kerry was (apparently) far to quick to take in 2004, and for which he was roundly criticized, c'est ne pas?

Before I would give heed to a copied email plea, from a non-member of this list, to a third party, wherein neither party will make out with a flat endorsement of HCPBnow , I would want to know why.

The message above says "It is a trap."

Oh, really???? Then pray tell what are those details which they must be privy to but which are not divulged to us? And, if there is some good reason, disclose it!!

I, myself, wish to no longer be drug, pushed, cajoled, conned, or lied into supporting such inept Machiavellian plots as last year's "Request by Voters", wherein we at peoplecount were told that some special people were able to play "inside baseball" and that we should just shut up and follow their lead.

If someone has advice to offer, I suggest they belly up to the bar and tell us all of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Then we at peoplecount can keep our own counsel, while considering such advice, and its source, with the jaundiced eye that the sources rather spotty track record deserves.

The good minds here at peoplecount are quite capable of deciding things for themselves. There is no reason to be stampeded by ex-members who now only deign to grace this list, secondhanded, when they have an ax to grind or some personal relations with home state officials to consider.

IMHO, we should keep our own council and decide for ourselves. And if the sources have any PERTINENT, FACTUAL data to share, which might influence us, then that is what should be sent to us instead of the ER equivalent of PUSH POLLS.


A good question to start with, regarding members of peoplecount begging Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich to "please, please, please don't exercise your Constitutional rights to ask for a recount !!!" is probably this:

"Cui bono?"

(Is it the friendly, helpful officials at the NH SoS office? Or those who deal with them?)

Phil

[kansasblue]

41. This is just like 2004. Nader asking for a recount.....

and he was asked at his press conference with Bev Harris. (as best I can remember)

"Knowing how important this recount is the winners, can you be sure the ballots have been kept safe?"

Nader: 'Well of ....of.... ...I ...... I know the Secretary of State in New Hampshire is a good man.'


At in 2004 I remember someone on this board posting the very same comment. Tell Nader not to do. He did. The recount match the first count.

Don't really have an opinion on this. Just remembering the winter of 2004.