NH hand counts and optical counts are mirror images

[JMDEM]

Statistial anomoly or something else?

Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you compare votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand: The percentages are exactly opposite and match to within .0001%. Optical Scan Clinton 91,717 52.9507% Obama 81,495 47.0493% Total 173,212 Hand Counted Clinton 20,889 47.0494% Obama 23,509 52.9506% Total 44,398.

http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=36459

[DJ13]

1. Sounds like the machine results were setup

.......to switch votes.

Vote for Obama, register the vote as for Hillary.

Very devious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. no, that wouldn't have been devious at all

It would have meant that throughout the op-scan part of the state, Obama did best where he should have done worst, and worst where he should have done best.

[ORDagnabbit]

2. okay...but what does that mean?

[Bluerthanblue]

3. dupe-

edited - wrong link :dunce:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2659174

[ORDagnabbit]

4. okay took a while to wrap my head around it....very wierd.

Scan Clinton 91,717 52.9507%
Hand Obama 23,509 52.9506%

Hand Clinton 20,889 47.0494%
scan Obama 81,495 47.0493%

[doublethink]

22. Great visual with your signature line under those figures ....

"Real patriots ask questions."

[JMDEM]

5. This is so bizarre that I am formulating a new theory...

I've been reading all the anti-election fraud posts in response to mine, and I have to admit that some points made are interesting.

Specifically, why would someone set up election fraud in a state where it could be so easily detected?

This has me thinking -- WHO would set up such fraud, if such fraud occurred? I don't think the Hillary camp did this -- I don't think they have the "ins" or resources.

Given this newest glaring statistical oddity, I am starting to think that fraud may have been set up with the deliberate intention of being detected. Who would do such a thing?

IMHO, all roads lead to Rove. Split the Democratic party over this (and other) issues, throw the convention wide-open in August, and fuel a 1968 style riot, ensuring a Republican victory when none seemed remotely possible.

[K Gardner]

7. And/Or... another theory..

(see, I didn't put it in the subject line!)

Pull a stunt that's this obvious - knowing you're going to cover your tracks and the vote will "match" in recount- that we'll do exactly what we've done. We demand a recount, it comes out squeaky clean (yes, it is all explained by a burst of emotion and lying to exit pollers!) and we're so embarassed we never demand another one. Exhibit A: The reaction "out there" when the questions started being raised.

[JMDEM]

8. Uh oh.... nt.

[Stevepol]

25. Or yet another theory: Ken Hajjar or some of the other

small-time mafia types and criminals like Jeffrey Dean et al. that run the voting machine companies just can't resist altering the results as they've been doing all over the country in many different areas.

How are they going to get caught anyway?

Maybe a recount will catch them, maybe not. What's the chain of custody? When do the vendors get their hands on the paper? How long do they have access to the votes? Who's going to be there when the recount takes place to oversee and monitor it?

I don't trust the recount to be honest, tho I'm glad it's going to happen.

[laconicsax]

9. There are some other possibilities

1) The Clinton campaign was clever enough to get their vote rigging software to every vote scanner and were able to also rig the exit-polls to show a narrow Clinton margin (quite an impressive feat), but weren't clever enough to cover their tracks or at the very least not make it look very suspicious.
2) The Obama campaign set the whole thing up to make it look like the Clinton campaign did it.
3) The Edwards campaign did it to pit Clinton and Obama against each other in a fight that would result in massive hoards of voters supporting Mr. Positive instead of the two bickering candidates.
4) Rove or some other RW ass did the whole thing to discredit Clinton so they can run a racist campaign against Obama (pander to the base without alienating Hispanic voters).
5) The World Health Organization set it up as part of a global conspiracy (you capitalized 'who,' I know you didn't mean the WHO...or did you?)
6) The Rethugs set the whole thing up without actually rigging the election so when a recount verifies the official results, it eliminates any suspicion of vote fraud, setting them up for a grand theft in the general election.
7) Coincidences are just that.

[Maven]

13. ...

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

10. Make the Democrats look overheated, make election fraud look tinfoil

distract from your own fraud. Distract from your OWN FRAUD.

[Maven]

12. This problem with the theory in the OP is that many of the hand counts came in last.

So in order to get the machine counts to match the hand counts, you'd almost have to be psychic.

Then you'd have to manipulate tabulators at several different polling places (because the systems are not linked in NH), while avoiding any overvoting (of which there was none).

Also note that in large municipalities (mainly in southern NH, which Clinton won decisively), Clinton won the hand-counted votes by a similar proportion to her win in machine-counted votes.

http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=DEMOCRATS

[Maven]

11. These "percentages" are misleading.

They actually express the proportion of one candidate's aggregate votes to the other in each category (i.e., hand-count versus machine). They are NOT indicative of the same kind of "flipping" that we saw within individual counties in FL and OH.

[creeksneakers2]

14. This whole conspiracy theory is based on faulty math logic

A = Machine votes for Hillary.
B = hand counted votes for Hillary
C = Machine counted votes for Obama
D = hand counted votes for Obama.

A+B = 100%
A+C = 100%
B+D = 100%
C+D = 100%

So we have a matrix
Hillary - A / B
Obama - C / D
machine counted / hand counted

If I know the results for any one of the squares I can predict all four squares.

If A = 30% then B must = 70%
If A = 30% then C must = 70%
If C = 70% then D must = 30%

So if you take the machine count for for Obama against his hand count numbers you'll get 70% / 30%
Do the same for Hillary you get 30 / 70%

No matter what percentage is plugged into any of the fours squares of the matrix the proportion of total hand counted/machine counted votes for one candidate will be the exact inverse of the other. The math logic used to find this supposedly suspicious outcome is just a case of somebody going in circles and getting himself dizzy. Its not evidence of some giant conspiracy.

This whole thing, of course, is spreading over the net like wildfire. That's one reason I'm against a recount. All this BS gets spread around and innocent people get hurt.

[Aptastik]

15. While I understand why "the math" happened, I don't understand

why anyone would be against a recount.

I'm kind of new and don't want to inject myself into a dog fight, but why would anyone be against recounting the votes to make sure every voter had their say?

[creeksneakers2]

16. Please forgive me for posting an essay

The audit won't just be a recount. It will turn into an investigation and the investigation will turn into a witch hunt. This happens every time the Clintons are accused of something. At the beginning, the accusers alway ask, "What harm could taking a second look do?" Then it all starts.

So far we have widely circulated falsehoods like the claim the Chris Matthews said that exit polls showed an 8% lead for Obama. A chart is circulating says Clinton only was projected to get 35% of the vote in the original exit poll but that number comes from one line in a British newspaper that didn't even have direct access to the data. We have invalid apples to oranges comparisons like hand counted to machine counted districts. Those comparison have been debunked, but the debunking is ignored.

Its already getting worse. People are raising the issue of ballot security. They believe that Obama ballots will be removed by insiders who want to cover up the fix.

A recount won't satisfy a conspiracy theorist. Nothing ever does. When no evidence is found for the original accusation, the theorist just says it was covered up. The accusations just keep piling on and there are too many lies to correct. Nobody changes their mind about the lies when shown proof to the contrary.

Soon we'll have revelations like somebody who worked at the software contractor made a donation to Bill Clinton in 1996. They'll find a Clinton supporter who had access to the ballots after the election. TV will pick it all up and they'll report it with phrases like "Hillary's ballot rigging scandal." It will go on and on until people get bored with it and it stops being covered on cable.

The proponents of the recount accuse those who are against it of not supporting clean elections. That is not the case with me. I'd love to see audits of our elections. But those audits should be scheduled BEFORE the election and not brought up afterward. A post election decision to audit casts suspicion on the winner. And if you are a Clinton you have the Clinton curse - every accusation must be followed by a witch hunt.

[philly_bob]

23. If pre-election polls, actual results, and exit polls line up, no recount.

But if they don't line up, then you get suspicious.

And you only know that after the election.

That said, I'd happily support recounts with good chain of custody for EVERY election until we get America's election system fixed.

[stillcool]

36. Many states already employ..

a standard recount of a percentage of the votes to secure the accuracy of the voting tabulation. If you are interested in seeing the various types of voting systems employed in your state, the following site has systems used by counties:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

Here are a few studies done on the various types of voting systems and their security issues:

http://www.usenix.org/events/evt07/tech/full_papers/feldman/feldman.pdf

http://www.usenix.org/events/evt07/tech/full_papers/feldman/feldman.pdf

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/red_sequoia.pdf

Why does one have to scream fraud in order to get the people's votes tabulated accurately?

[dailykoff]

17. Maybe that's why Iowa wasn't rigged too.

They needed Iowa to figure out what the real numbers would be like so they'd know the surest way to rig NH. This mirror trick sounds like a sure thing, apart from the possibility of getting caught, which never seems to bother them.

[JanusAscending]

31. They couldn't posibly "rig" Iowa. It wasn't a primary .........

No machines used in a caucus!!! Have to stand right up there barefaced and state your choices!!!! Brave and Bold right??? Perhaps we all should do the caucus thing to keep it honest!!????

[HughMoran]

18. Hillary got 9.6% hand counted ballots, Obama got 10.8% hand counted ballots

(that's only counting Hillary and Obama's votes - the percentage of the overall vote is smaller.)

In addition, Hillary got 42.1% of the machine counted votes, Obama got 37.5% of the machine counted votes (once again discounting the other candidates.)

Now if you add the percentages - 9.6, 10.8, 42.1, 37.5 - you get 100%. This is the non-deceptive way of looking at the vote totals.

[dailykoff]

19. I think you're missing the point.

If they simply swapped Hillary and Obama's machine counts, you'd still get 100%.

[HughMoran]

20. I hope the total of all the votes cast = 100%

I don't get what you are saying?

[dailykoff]

21. Who said it didn't?

That's not the problem, so why are you pretending it is?

[Kip Humphrey]

24. Easy solution to this whole mess: switch the machine counted vote between Hillary and Obama and

ALL of the discrepancies vanish! AMAZING!!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. and absolutely untrue

Actually, if you do that, you make discrepancies all over the place, because Obama does best in all the (op-scan) places where he ought to do worst. Kerry's 2004 performance predicts Clinton's 2008 performance, but it would become a negative predictor just for the op-scan places. That would be much weirder than the official results -- and it didn't happen.

(Elsewhere someone is saying, 'Well, who says the 2004 primary wasn't rigged too?' That point would be marginally more impressive if someone had made it in advance -- but I'm skeptical that anyone really believes that Dean won New Hampshire in 2004. He did win the current hand-count jurisdictions.)

[Roland99]

27. Ok, you have my attention now!!

[dailykoff]

28. It's the simple things that matter.

:kick:

[riqster]

29. People who opppose transparent elections belong in the Republican Party

I am so sick of the insults thrown at Election Integrity activists by semi-informed nervous Nellies and GOP plants. If you are against hand counts, you are against honesty in government.

And should take a hike. Or fuck yourself.

Combine them, and take a fuckin' hike.

Honest, open, and transparent elections are no threat to anyone except the corrupt.

[AtLiberty]

30. I confront both nervous Nellies and GOP hacks

Let's all be grown-ups and accept the election fraud exists, for crying out loud.

We CANNOT afford to lose 2008 the way we've lost 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. Yes, that's right -- we lost some key state and local elections due to fraud in 2006, too...

[diva77]

32. were there other races on the ballots? how did they differ in the

opscan vs handcount counties?

[riqster]

33. In this case, it's not relevant

...a properly written software program will only change what it is told to.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. only president and vice-president

I'm not sure why they bother with vice-president. Someone named Stebbins won the Democratic VP primary with over 50,000 votes, but I will venture that Stebbins will not be the vice-presidential nominee.

What we can usefully compare is the last two presidential primaries. Dean won the hand-count jurisdictions in 2004; Bradley won them in 2000. So it doesn't seem unusual for those jurisdictions to go their own way. (Pre-election polls in 2000 and 2004 don't point to massive surprises in those years.)

I hope it's clear to everyone that there are two disjoint issues here: whether op-scan results should be checked, and whether these results are anomalous.

[riqster]

35. Bears repeating:

"I hope it's clear to everyone that there are two disjoint issues here: whether op-scan results should be checked, and whether these results are anomalous."

Very well put!

[diva77]

37. were any polls conducted for the vp candidates? any comparison btw those

polls and the election results?

How did Dean fare in the non-hand count jurisdictions in 2004? How did other races do in hand count versus nhc counties?

It is not unrealistic to suspect vote switching with the results of the NH primary 2008 -- see article at www.studycaliforniaballots.org

entitled:

Possible Effects of Sequoia Optech Scanners on the Outcome of the 2004
General Election in Santa Fe County, New Mexico
By Judith B. Alter, Ed.D.
Executive Summary

snip

CONCLUSION
This study suggests that programmed mechanisms in the straight party option contributed to the unpredictable and statistically anomalous voting patterns in the Democratic county of Santa Fe, New Mexico in 2004. These programmed mechanisms in the Sequoia Optech scanners were not open to inspection by public officials or any non-Sequoia experts employed by them. Nevertheless, the Sequoia Optech scanners used to count ballots for absentee and early voting appear to have not counted many votes and to have shifted votes in the straight party option from minor party presidential candidates to major party candidates, most likely Bush.
snip

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. on the first, I really doubt it

I don't know that the VP candidates even bother to campaign; I'm not sure why they bother to file. At any rate, I doubt that anyone pays good money to poll on a meaningless race.

The pattern in 2004 and also in 2000 was similar: Dean and Bradley won in hand count jurisdictions; Kerry and Gore won elsewhere. The difference is (as I've said elsewhere) that those results were very close to pre-election polls. (It isn't inherently shocking that this was a harder race to poll, with IA just five days before NH.) There's really no reason to attribute the differences to fraud in each year.

It's not inherently unrealistic to suspect vote switching, no, although I'm not convinced that it happened in NM in 2004. All I can say is that lots of people are talking about "anomalies" that aren't actually anomalous.

[diva77]

39. OTOH I know you are in academia (at least I think you are) ...I do not under-

stand why you don't place the burden of proof on the vendors to demonstrate that the equipment actually does do what it's supposed to do, i.e. count every vote as cast accurately. I find it ridiculous and frightening that we are supposed to accept things as they are unless we can gather the financial and political resources to get to the bottom of all of this. If voting machines were heart medication, I don't think you'd be arguing as you are...

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. excuse me...

This has nothing to do with whether the equipment does with what it's supposed to do. This has to do with the integrity in the election integrity movement. Some people are claiming anomalies that aren't anomalous. Some people are spewing crap about exit polls. And, not infrequently, some people are slandering anyone who tries to set them straight. All that is completely unnecessary and destructive.

If we can keep the focus on all the known problems with the machines -- or, for that matter, get skeptical about election results, but intelligently skeptical -- I will be more than happy.