NH: 7.5% Vote Count Discrepancy Found During "Recount" in Nashua, Ward 5

[BradBlog]

NH Election Contest Update: 7.5% Vote Count Discrepancy Found in Nashua, Ward 5 for Clinton, Edwards

While getting caught up with New Hampshire, after three days of travel and other related maladies, in preparing for a long catch-up article on the latest there (now posted here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5586), I came across the following, from the latest numbers as posted last Friday night on the NH SoS website results page.

I've translated the numbers from the SoS's ridiculously impossible-to-read page, to something a bit more useful...



MORE: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5591

[bdamomma]

1. kick and rec

[BeFree]

8. Yes

And now the replies following this post will return us to the faction that thinks the vote in NH was just fine. No problems. The know-it-alls who think that e-voting is the way to go (to hell) are weighing in below. Sad but true.

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. what, you still haven't read the story from the 19th?

Human error in Nashua Ward 5 resulted in extra numbers

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/NEWS08/267211607/-1/XML12

I guess I expect you to at least do a Google search before you post your discoveries.

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Oh dear!

[papau]

4. LOL - I thought the 0.53 error rate overall - better than any handcount in the 50's to 70's - would

quiet Brad - I guess I was wrong

Bit like Brad throwing mandatory audits for 08 (HR811) out because he couldn't get his paper only world - the fellow is very focused! :-)

[KittyWampus]

5. the numbers given in the article you cite don't tally with what Bradblog notes in the graph

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. yes, they do

Keep reading; then think about what it might mean.

Most likely, Clinton lost 75 votes that she had received on ballots with vice-presidential write-ins, but she picked up 4 votes from other ballots. And so on.

Regardless, the article gives the same numbers Brad gave.

[mistertrickster]

7. Nice snag. I'm kicking this story to show that just because your candidate

doesn't win, doesn't mean that election fraud is the reason.

After all, who would Diebold throw the election to on the Dem side, even if they wanted to throw it?

EDWARDS?! He got the highest percentage of "help" from Diebold.

We should be using this election as a "control" of what to expect in elections.

[2 Much Tribulation]

9. Just because YOUR candidate wins, doesn't make it legit, either

But the bottom line is that winners won't challenge their own elections, so if you are going to try to urge or shame the purported "losers" into not investigating or challenging elections, then democracy is left defenseless, isn't it? I think it was Paul Lahto that said something like that, we're all basically winners or losers in elections so if the losers can't challenge there's no one left to protect democracy. That sounds logical, but it doesn't sound good for democracy.

[mistertrickster]

10. Fair enough. I just couldn't figure why Diebold would want to throw anything

for any Dem candidate.

Plus the optical scan ballots ARE a robust paper trail. It'd be very hard to tamper with hundreds of scan cards.

[kster]

11. What if the Dem candidate was

a DINO, that was willing to keep their (the crooks) agenda alive. Then could you see it?