New Hampshire machine-counted votes: Is there a paper trail or not?

[Skinner]

Does anyone know?

If there is no paper trail, obviously that is a problem.

If there is a paper trail, I was under the impression that the paper trail existed to make sure the result can be verified, and resolve any possible fraud or errors in the machine count. Isn't that what activists have been saying? Yet here we are, being told that the results are not reliable or transparent. If there actually had been a problem, wouldn't there be a way to check the results?

[annabanana]

1. There are (I believe) paper ballots. Recounts can only be

called for by candidates in NH.

So in that State, at this time, no New Hampshire voter can call for a count.

[EFerrari]

11. And that is where it gets political.

Any candidate that asks for such a thing will immediately become pariah.

Dennis might be able to do it.

It would be a good opportunity to make sure we have a clean house ahead of November.

[Telly Savalas]

25. Why isn't Dennis doing it? He's got nothing to lose.

[EFerrari]

27. DU usually is all over this stuff before anyone else.

Dennis may go for it. I hope he does.

[Telly Savalas]

30. Shouldn't Kucinich's campaign staff be more plugged into this sort of stuff

than us amateurs?

It's been 24 hours. I'm guessing if he's planning on doing anything, he would have made some noise by now.

[EFerrari]

42. It's usually not the politicians or the campaigns who do this work.

It's us amateurs, lol.

Scary, ain't it?

But it's true. Politicians don't want to touch this stuff. When the law suits are brought or a Sec of State decertifies one of these cheesy machines, it's usually because a group or someone like LandShark or autorank or emlev or IdaBriggs or demodonkey or flyarm has done something, not because a politician did something.

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. Does his campaign actually have any staff?

Or is it just a bunch of volunteers working out of of VW van?

[Zueda]

62. He'd get free publicity too!

[bdamomma]

41. this should have been dealt with a long time ago.

[EFerrari]

43. Yep. And here we are, between a Bush/t and a Huckabee without a paddle. n

[EFerrari]

2. There are paper ballots that are scanned. It's better than a paper trail,

it is a hard record in those precincts that use op scan systems.

The problem is, no audit is done to check behind the machine count. So, we don't really have transparency, only its potential, Skinner.

And yes, that would be exactly the way to resolve this issue, as far as I know.

[Hoof Hearted]

14. Except that it's not an "issue" anywhere except here and a few obscure blogs

DU is not the real world.

[City Lights]

29. BradBlog is reporting that Tribune Media Services is running a story

tomorrow:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3131778

[onenote]

105. its a column, not a story.

And the columnist refers to Bev Harris' "highly respected" BBV site. Need I say more?

[book_worm]

147. bradblog is a much of nonsense

[durrrty libby]

31. "DU is not the real world." Deeply Thank the universe for that

[EFerrari]

51. That's what some posters said in December of 04

when we were pilloried for questioning Ohio.

How did that work out?

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Let me see, several people are IN JAIL for VOTER FRAUD

:-)

I know you know this, but so many folks here DON'T

[Pastiche423]

115. It's ELECTION fraud we should worry about

not VOTER fraud.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. We are talking of Election fraud Dear Sir... the people I am referring to in Cuyahooga Co

were in charge of the electoral system and ENGAGED in election fraud

[Pastiche423]

128. Andy drilled ELECTION not VOTER into my brain

Now when I see VOTER in lieu of ELECTION, my fingers have a mind of their own to correct it.

Btw, I have a vagina, not a penis.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. my mistake, in the web that is easy to make

[Pastiche423]

132. No problem

So sorry to react too quickly. Yes, it is easy to make a mistake.

[bleever]

3. It is being said that the exit polls don't match the vote totals

(in contradiction to your straightforward post to the contrary), and after hearing Matthews say that repeatedly today, it lead me to post this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=489034&mesg_id=489034

Short story: same people claim to know the percentage counted by hand versus counted by Diebold, but I can't trace it back (at least yet) to public domain info.

But you're right: if there were a universal paper trail, we could actually check, regardless of initial counting method.

[EFerrari]

6. Are we sure Matthews isn't just being careless in his speech? n/t

[bleever]

10. He was pretty adamant

about it being exit polls, taken after people had cast their ballots.

I was surprised he was so sure about it, but to answer your question, No. :)

[EFerrari]

13. Well, congrats for having the stomach to watch him.

Feel better, bleever. :)

[Marrah_G]

39. I was listening to the radio during the election and they were reporting Clinton ahead in the..

... exit polls all along. They were surprised and spent most of the night talking about why and frankly as the night went on it made perfect sense to me. When you are from New England you understand how people are here and NH folks are a different sort.

[bleever]

49. Where did this story about the exit poll discrepancy come from?

And the fact that many people (especially media types) don't distinguish between exit polls and pre-election preference polls is disturbing.

[Marrah_G]

69. It came from people freaking out and trying to explain something that was really very simple

The media gets into a frenzy, the blogs get into a frenzy and reality, sadly, falls by the wayside.

[xultar]

143. Right. EXACTLY RIGHT.

[orleans]

93. tweet surprised me tonight -- he said something about having to see

what happens coming up in feb. he made a comment at the end of the show (i think) that sounded like he was gonna be all over this--he was only a step away from talking about the machines. i kept thinking he would cross the line and come out and say it

either tweet or malloy & brad (on malloy's show tonight) were talking about the exit polls being on the money except for clinton/obama--and i think bradblog was saying in the precincts where there was no optiscam being used the exit polls MATCHED the vote totals.

[marlakay]

4. On Ed Shultz show a guy who worked for NH

voting called in after a guy called in to say were votes stolen by machines?? and he said that even in the machine areas all voting had paper back up.

[annabanana]

5. In order for the paper to matter.

It has to be examined.

[AlCzervik]

8. plus what exactly does it read, does it just have a (D) or and (R) or are the candidates

names on the paper as well? where i live we have the fill in the bubble and then feed it into the scanner thingy.

[helderheid]

7. from my understanding, yes, but not audits are required.

[journalist3072]

9. This is really ridiculous....Sen. Clinton wins N.H., so DU assumes there was some sort of

election malfeisance? Get a grip!

[Skinner]

17. Um, "DU" doesn't assume anything.

I, for one, am completely unpersuaded by the claims of fraud. As are many others.

[Hoof Hearted]

19. It's totally out of hand. It's incredible. It's disappointing.

[EFerrari]

21. No assumptions are necessary. You take the polling anomalies,

and the bad history these machines have together, and that's enough to raise legit questions.

No one is attacking Senator Clinton. If she becomes our nominee and wins the election, it would be nice to make sure her election is theft proof and that we don't have to sing "Hail to the Huckster" for eight years.

[orleans]

99. huckster? no. we won't be singing to him. we'll be forced to sing it to mccain. n/t

[New Earth]

22. I seriously do not think that is the case

If it was any of them who won, and there was a discrepancy like that, I'd at least be suspicious, not of anyone in particular, but as in WTF happened?

[Rex]

12. I doubt Diebold gives receipts or kept paper records.

The whole point is to store it on a harddrive for verification. They don't want paper.

[EFerrari]

15. These are op scan systems like the ones we use here, not touch screens.

People fill out a ballot and that ballot is scanned.

The problem is, the machine they're scanned into is a hackable computer, not an adding machine.

It should be no problem if there were mandated audits to check the vote totals. The problem is, there is no such mandate.

[Rex]

18. Are the ballots kept or thrown away after scanned?

[EFerrari]

24. Iirc, by law they have to be kept for a period of time.

But, I don't know the law in NH. That info is probably available on the NH Sec of State's web site.

[Rex]

85. Someone could look into this if they are concerned about election

fraud. If the ballots only are around for a few weeks then it would be an issue.

[The Magistrate]

23. Exactly, Ma'am

If there were a serious allegation of fraud by a candidate, there is a record to audit and compare. There will not be such a complaint, because there are no professional political operatives who think the result is fraudulent.

[EFerrari]

26. Or, there is no candidate who will risk becoming pariah

when their take of delegates is as good as it's going to get.

Those are two different calculations, aren't they?

[The Magistrate]

33. Not To My Eyes, Ma'am

Distrust of the electric counts is sufficiently mainstream that great popular credit would accrue to the figure who demonstrated it conclusively. No one is trying for that crown because no one expects the result would be any different than normal error runs from the reported totals.

All of this is based on nothing more or less than ascribing infallibility to opinion polling that all professionals know was out of date by the time the polls opened, and that all professionals know incorporated guesses about the composition of the actual turn-out that were proved mistaken by the event.

[EFerrari]

45. What is strange, Your Honor, is that although as you say

distrust of electronic voting is becoming mainstream, not one of the pundits even raised the issue. Instead, they made themselves into pretzels coming up with tortured narratives for yesterday.

One of those may be true.

It should concern us that we can't know.

[The Magistrate]

54. It Will Be Raised, Ma'am, In A Serious Way

When some result seems seriously out of line, and only explicable by that sort of 'X' factor. This one does not come near to even approaching such an event.

Again, any claim this result is fraudulent must rest entirely on the ascription of dead on accuracy to the pre-election opinion polling, and to their various guesses concerning turn-out. They cannot bear that weight.

[EFerrari]

59. The Kerry example would seem to undermine that postulate.

I no longer expect the political campaigns to do this and, that may be right. It may require one more head than most politicians have to challenge the election systems.

The simple fact that, aside from the polling (which I agree was not given to us on stone tablets, lol), there is no transparency in this process is a problem. Secrecy breeds corruption. We've had an eight year nightmare to prove that axiom.

At bottom, I'd rather find out now that we have a problem and not next November.

[The Magistrate]

70. A Recount Would Not Have Turned Ohio Around, Ma'am

Ohio was cooked by much older and simpler sharp practices, that shaped the actual casting of votes to the desired pattern well before votes were actually counted. Even criminal prosecution of those who contrived this, which in many instances was certainly warranted, would not have altered the registered totals.

[EFerrari]

76. We can't know because they killed the recount.

But, I agree. They threw everything at Ohio. It was quite an effort, wasn't it? I see no reason to believe this effort won't be redoubled in 2008 because they cannot win so they must steal.

[The Magistrate]

86. They Do Not Have Such A Lock On the Machinery In 'Battleground' States, Ma'am, This Time Around

Ohio is lost to them, and while Florida is still a strange place in parts, it is not under unrestricted control by the enemy today.

You have to have every lever in your hand to do this sort of thing successfully.

The traditional 'remedy' for fraud, which is as old as elections, is that both sides can be relied on to engage in it effectively where-ever they find opportunity, and so a rough balance emerges, with the opposing efforts more or less canceling out. What is being nowadays regarded as the sudden appearance of major fraud owes mostly to the fraud having been concentrated grossly on one side of the contest,

As you may have gathered, Ma'am, 'good government' types do not rank very high on my scale....

[FourScore]

16. It's a scanner. It scans paper ballots. n/t

[EFerrari]

28. More than just a scanner. It's a calculator that you can program, too. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

34. Hand-counted votes match exit polls. DIEbold counts give Hillary more votes.

Link to Kos diary, with great charts (which I can't cut and paste, sorry).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/9/181852/2086/306/433947


Here's a breakdown from op-ed news:


2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

[Junkdrawer]

44. Dead link. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

53. Looks as though Kos sent the story down the memory hole. Here's another link.

http://presscue.com/node/38034

Diebold favors Hillary, hand count for Obama
Wed, 01/09/2008 - 05:46 - clark
I used the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines. The results were astonishing. :

Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) - Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.

By Percentage

Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77%
Hand Count 47.47% 52.53%

By Votes

Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 82860 72807
Hand Count 18898 20912

By Number of Municipalities Won

Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 54 33
Hand Count 43 77

About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines.

[Junkdrawer]

55. I suspected Kos would start doing this....

:mad:

[EFerrari]

60. Why? I know Kos hates this issue. Is it simply that? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

64. He did it in 2004...started deleting ALL posts that questioned the machines n/t

[Hutzpa]

112. WTF!!!

Are you mad because Kos is stating the fact,

Watch yourself, unless I'm missing something here!



:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

47. That assumes that small precincts tend to vote the same way as larger urban areas

[The Magistrate]

56. And They Do Not, Ma'am

Anyone who is a serious student of elections knows this.

[EFerrari]

52. Yep. Thanks for posting that.

Part of the problem here is that this discussion can begin to sound as if people are questioning the Clinton campaign.

It's not about the Clinton campaign. It could just as easily been Obama or whoEVER. This is about the process.

[chimpymustgo]

58. Thanks for pointing that out. I was not displeased by Hillary's victory (though I don't support her

But I felt she had been mistreated by the media, AND I think it's important for the process to continue a bit longer before we have a coronation. But I don't trust these machines - and what's becoming a very predictable pattern of tortured analysis to explain why the exit polls were wrong - voters lied, voters were racist, voters were sexist, voters (your explanation here).

It's time to CONSIDER something may be wrong with the actual counts.

[FourScore]

40. Exactly. Thanks for adding that, sfexpat2000. n/t

[MADem]

129. NH HAS paper though. ALL paper. Every voter gets a piece of paper.

They fill in the circle next to their choice, and feed it into a machine. The machine counts it and the paper sits in a hopper awaiting a recount if needed. A HAND recount, if needed.

[sandnsea]

20. Oregon just passed sample verifications

We have all opti-scan, all paper. I can't remember if it's every precinct, or randomly selected precincts, but we will now automatically do a sample hand count to verify election results. I think it's a good idea for everyone to work for that in their own state.

[troubleinwinter]

80. Exactly. Please read my sig line.

Op scans are practical and useful, but the counts MUST have random audits, otherwise we have no reason whatever to assume the reported results are or are not accurate.

We cannot confidently assume fraud, errors, OR accuracy without proper random audits.

Audits must be REQUIRED. The voters of this country should be able to have confidence that their votes have been accurately counted without having to rely on a candidate to call for a recount, or for there to be an assumption or accusation of fraud.

We cannot ASSUME accuracy when votes are counted by machines. We have brains and eyes, and can and must properly audit any count done by progammed machines.

[Marrah_G]

32. Yes there are paper ballots

I believe they vote the same way we do in Mass. You get a paper ballot, fill it out, run it through a scanner and the paper ballot remains in case of a recount or electronic error.

People are just furious and hate Hillary so venomously that is MUST be fraud. Frankly Skinner it has gotten out of hand and I know I'm not the only one who has reached the end of my rope. With the exception of your posts I have hidden every fraud and every nasty thread....there are so many it's been non stop. They refuse to listen to reason and I feel that even if there was a recount and it came out in Hillary's favor they would claim the recount was rigged also.

It's gotten very, very nasty around here.

Just my two cents,

Marrah

[LostinVA]

73. You hit the nail on the head

[orleans]

123. what about those of us who do NOT hate hillary? what's your excuse for us?

maybe that we just hate secret vote counts? that we hate electronic machines? that we hate diebold?

all of that might actually be true, marrah

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Well I don't expect to see an answer to that one

apparently those of us concerned about the process hate murica and Hillary Rotham Clinton.

You are right... and that shit is getting old.. it happens every time any of us goes... something's wrong here... yep it MIGHT be all right and correct... but as long as we are talking ELECTRONIC.., we cannot truly trust it

[Orangepeel]

35. I think Clinton won and I don't think there was fraud...

but machine error happens. :shrug:

The main benefit of optical scanner machines over touchscreen is the fact that they count paper ballots. There always should be random spot checks to verify accuracy. Why the hell not?

In this case, if the exit polls were consistent with the pre-election polling but they didn't accurately predict the actual vote counts, that warrants further examination IMO.

The only further examination the media seems to be doing is to use the exit poll results (e.g., gender, independents, new voters, etc.) to try to explain the discrepancies, and that makes no sense. If the exit polls don't accurately predict the vote totals, the demographics from the exit polls aren't reliable.

[Gman]

36. NH and every other state should have a paper trail.

However, everyone keeps comparing the polls to the actuals. I think it's very clear that the pollsters were trying to take a picture of a fast moving object and got a very blurry picture. I believe Obama got a big boost in NH after Iowa. But I also believe there was some movement toward Hillary that they were unable to measure for some reason. The tears likely moved a lot of votes her way. The result was a very blurry picture of fast moving objects when they tried to snap a static picture of the likely NH vote.

JMHO.

[Junkdrawer]

37. Paper ballots, 80% machine counted by dishonest machines...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2643753&mesg_id=2643753

[maxanne]

38. there is no evidence of voter fraud in NH

This is what comes of listening to pollsters and the media. They got it wrong - and they're working overtime to find a way to blame NH voters. Chris Matthews decided
that NH must be full of racists, because Obama didn't win.

What happened is pretty simple. Clinton won the big cities. That's where her organization was strongest. She had the support of the NHDP hierarchy - and they began building
her organization well over a year ago. They did incredible GOTV work. They kicked ass.

Obama won some of the other cities - the more liberal cities, with the bigger colleges. He did really well in rural areas (which would be the places where racism was more likely, btw). The northern half
of the state goes largely ignored by all candidates - because the population centers aren't there, and the rural areas used to be more conservative. That's changing quick, but that hasn't been widely accepted
yet. Obama and Hillary both had a lot of offices in the north country - but Obama scored more endorsements from state legislators and opinion leaders in the north.

The optical scan machines are used in the cities and big towns. Clinton won Manchester and Nashua - BUT - Obama won Portsmouth, Keene, and Concord. Each of those places used the optiscan machines.

The UNH pollster Andy Smith has been touted repeatedly as an expert. In 2006, Andy Smith got EVERYTHING wrong. I can't believe he still has a job. These people need a scapegoat - so now it's tinfoil hat time.

At some point, perhaps we will all grasp something important. Polls are NOT always right. Exit polls aren't always right. A poll is only as good as the questions you ask. When we rely on the corporate media and the pollsters, we're not getting good information.

[EFerrari]

48. I agree that polls are fallible. But, how do we know that Clinton won

in the bigger cities and Obama won in the more liberal ones?

If we can't honestly say how we know, our November election is in jeopardy. I don't want to have another "just trust us" President.

[The Magistrate]

63. There Are A Number Of Things Known, Ma'am, Bearing On That

Evident for weeks and months.

Sen. Clinton's support is stronger among less affluent and less educated Democrats, and among older Democrats. These are predominant in the older, larger urban areas, not just in New Hampshire but across the country.

Sen. Obama's support is stronger among more affluent and more educated Democrats, and among younger people whether Democrats or independents. These will be a greater element of the populace in 'gentrified' and college towns.

Identification as Democrat is less likely in rural areas, which in the primary electorate would translate into a greater proportion of independents casting ballots.

The older, bigger cities have still local party machines that retain skills at turning out their voters, and these were definitely in New Hampshire on the side of Sen. Clinton: that is one of the advantages of being the 'establishment' candidate, and why that is not nearly the kiss of death some would like to pretend it is.

[EFerrari]

65. There is a lot of information in your post. I will have to read it over

to take it in. Thank you, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

72. Always Happy To Oblige, Ma'am

"Just because they're dead don't mean they stopped being Democrats."

[EFerrari]

77. LOL!

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

50. Thank you, maxanne!

Your words mean a lot because I know damn well you are no "Hillbot" nor apologist for the status quo.

[EFerrari]

57. The idea that these concerns are being raised out of the Obama camp

are also not true.

When I read these threads, I see the people who have worked hard on election fraud and reform for years now and who post to DU.

People who know more than I do and whose opinion I respect. I don't even know who most of them back. But we don't meet in GD-P. We see each other in the Election Reform forum. So, the repeated claims that "Obama-ites" are somehow generating this conversation just doesn't seem to me to be true.

[mod mom]

74. Election fraud not voter fraud (that's where the voter tries to game the system-like

Ann Coulter voting where he/she shouldn't have, or a voter voting more than once. Voter fraud is a non-issue used by the GOP to place restrictions on voting despite a lack of evidence showing there is a problem.

[bdamomma]

46. kick

[Junkdrawer]

61. Any candidate can ask...full state costs $80,000....in 2004, it took a month....

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041113/NEWS02/111130045/-1/news02

[EFerrari]

67. I wonder where DUer NashuaAdvocate is. We could use his input

right about now. :)

Thanks, Junkdrawer.

[Marrah_G]

78. He is probably hiding under his bed waiting to make sure the media and chaos have gone

Hell, most of southern NH needs a vacation just to recover from the last few weeks. It truly gets insane.

[mod mom]

66. Op scan ballots are a sheet of heavy weight paper that the voter marks, then is

fed into the op scan machine. It's easy to audit (I've personally done dozens of precincts in OH) What I recommended earlier is auditing to give confidence to the process. EVEN IF AN ENTIRE AUDIT INDICATES NO FRAUD THIS TIME AROUND-WE SHOULDN'T LET DOWN OUR GUARD! We as citizens must demand verifiable elections.

I would like to add that there were a lot of rude posts stating that those who questioned the primary did it because we had sour grapes from the results. BS. There was a huge difference from even internal Clinton polling, images of rally event showed jam packed Obama events and smaller Clinton events, and the polling seemed to be on key with the GOP. Nobody blamed Clinton but had suspicious eyes to the Diebold contractor, Silvestro. The outcome can be tampered with and your doing your country a disservice to attempt to intimidate folks from questioning results.

[EFerrari]

71. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant". n/t

[Skinner]

75. Thanks for the info, everyone. I think this pretty much settles it for me.

Here's where we stand at this point:

1. No credible evidence of fraud or malfunction has yet been produced.

2. A number of observers here and elsewhere have provided perfectly rational explanations for alleged discrepancies between tracking polls and the final outcome.

3. So far there has been nary a peep from any campaign indicating that they believe there may have been either fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire.

4. If any of the campaigns had reason to believe that there was fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire, and if they wished to challenge the results of the election, a paper trail exists whereby the results could be verified.

At this point everyone has said their piece, and nothing new is being added to the discussion. Nobody's mind is being changed. The topic has become both disruptive and divisive. Tomorrow I'm going to discuss this with the other admins. If this is still disrupting the General Discussion forums tomorrow, I think there is a good chance that we may move all of it over to the Election Reform forum. (Unless, of course, someone actually has some real evidence to support the claim of fraud. And by "real evidence" I mean real evidence.)

Now, I think I'm going to bed.

Oh, by the way... I don't think I ever congratulated Hillary supporters for your amazing win in New Hampshire. I'm sorry that you didn't get the chance to enjoy it here on DU as much as you might have liked. That's a bummer. Because it really was a stunning victory.

[Marrah_G]

79. Thank you Skinner!

Perhaps tomorrow we could move onto the good news.......

DEMOCRATS ARE PISSED AND ARE GOING OUT TO VOTE IN RECORD NUMBERS!

That is the real story in New Hampshire.

[proud patriot]

82. It will be nice to Focus on the Dem Turnout

:woohoo:

The numbers are great and young people participating :bounce:..

I'm really impressed with all Democrats and have been
thoroughly enjoying this primary .

[HughMoran]

91. Amazing how the significance of the turnout and Dem vs Repub has been virtually ignored

It looks good for Dems going forward! :woohoo:

[EFerrari]

109. I couldn't agree more! But, in 2004 Kerry got a record turn out

and they stole it anyway.

[HughMoran]

124. Kerry sucked too though

He made it easy to be stolen - allow the election to tip on one state and even that state was marginal?

This primary was quite a bit more than 2004 and the Dem versus Repub voting numbers was amazing!

[bleever]

95. Great point!

So many great candidates, and so many people coming out to choose one.

[proud patriot]

111. I'm luvin your sig

I might just have to get that when I have a few extra bucks .

[David Zephyr]

83. Well said, Skinner.

I am an Obama supporter. I was disappointed in the results in New Hampshire. But the summary that you provided is indeed the current status and until there is any real evidence of voter fraud, then the results are the results.

Hillary's victory in New Hampshire was as stunning as Barack's was in Iowa. We should all be big enough to accept our victories and our losses.

I hardly think that there will be any evidence of voter fraud that could rewrite the magnitude of Hillary's win.

I do not want the DemocraticUnderground to become a forum of disruption and hate. What we have here is a treasure and there is a lot of freedom that we all have and that also requires some responsibility.

I see where one Hillary supporter is leaving the DU. That is a shame. I hope that they find a way to stay.

You, Skinner, and EarlG and Elad and the Mods do a terrific job here. In fact, I don't know how in the hell you've held it all together as we've been through so much since 2001. Don't let it slip away.

[bleever]

84. Sorry you didn't make it to the Greatest page.

But it was a good discussion. :)

[EFerrari]

87. We can fix that.

K&R

[bleever]

92. Noooooo!!

Always the troublemaker, aren't you?

:7

[HughMoran]

88. You have summarized the situation accurately in my opinion (as a NH resident)

Thanks for the consideration WRT this issue - it has stirred up a lot of anger and resentment today. I hope one way or the other the poison can be neutralized.

[Marrah_G]

94. Hey- You guys did GREAT- The Number of Dems voting was amazing!!!

:hi: from your neighbor to the south.

I was so proud of the Democratic Party in NH yesterday, a truly stellar job all around.

[HughMoran]

96. It was an amazing day for me

I am still just coming down from the high!

:D

[EFerrari]

97. Poison? Is it poisonous for voters to want transparency?

[HughMoran]

100. Insulting people who ask for evidence is

Is that too much to ask?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

104. Maybe I've filtered that out.

And, this whole thing seems turned on its head to me.

We should have a system so reliable that fraud can be caught.

Instead, we have a system that even Jimmy Carter refuses to monitor because it's so dirty.

In other words, instead of asking for evidence of fraud, the bottom line should be requiring our election results to be unimpeachable.

[HughMoran]

117. Agreed, the results should be unimpeachable

I couldn't agree more.

If you look deeper into the NH primary though, you would realize that this was not the time to suddenly have an epiphany about voting irregularities and/or fraud issues. The timing of this assault was suspicious and showed a certain disdain for us NH voters and our decision making abilities. I personally was livid that the press had declared the winner before the voting even began. Then they declared Hillary dead amongst other vapid sleights to her "humanness". In fact, after meeting Hillary and Chelsea at the polling station, I decided to go against my previous decision not to vote for Hillary and indeed I did vote for her. Many others were influenced by events on the ground after Sunday's final poll (you know the events I am referring to.) Transparent voting is an issue that needs to be addressed, but choosing this particular primary to suddenly "find religion" on voting issues is disingenuous to me. I clearly remember reading here on DU that NH's scanning machines were not a big issue to those concerned with voter fraud due to their inherent paper trail. I marked that paper and personally inserted it into the tabulator. That paper was sealed in the machine at that point - safe and sound. The accuracy of the machines is phenomenal to. This was not the time or place to raise these issues IMHO.

[EFerrari]

118. There was no sudden epiphany.

Search the Election Reform forum. It's been up for years. :shrug:

Would it be better to raise these concerns after that asshole Huckabee is installed?

[HughMoran]

121. There was an epiphany here as not one post concerning voter issues was being discussed

on the main forums prior to the "favorite son" losing his anointed status.

Since I referenced my knowledge of this issue in my previous post (remember how I said the experts here didn't' think NH was a problem), I find it insulting that you either skimmed my post or are being deliberately insulting to me. Please re-read my previous post.

Throwing the "Huckabee is installed" red herring at me (this is the second time today someone has pulled this stunt) is insulting to mine and everyone else's intelligence here - please stay on topic - the NH Primary - 1-8-08.

[EFerrari]

125. You are mistaken. Please do go search the Election Reform forum. n/t

[HughMoran]

127. Wasn't talking about that forum

and YOU KNOW IT!

:mad:

[EFerrari]

140. I don't understand your issue. As far as I can tell, the people

expressing concern are people I talk to about election systems all the time here and not Obama fans. althecat and autorank posted their article in GD so it would get wider viewing than in the ER, I assume.

I rarely go to GD-P except by accident so, if there is partisan stuff happening there, I don't know about it and am frankly not interested.

Given that our last two winning candidates were not seated, looking ahead to the general election is not a "stunt" -- it is the bigger picture and what really matters at bottom. It doesn't matter how many delegates Senator Clinton (or anyone) gets if we let them steal it again. I'd likely feel differently if it were an Edwards' win or result that was under scrutiny but it makes no sense to give any questionable result a pass if what you're doing in the long run is setting yourself up to be ripped off in November.

[chimpymustgo]

102. Skinner, how do you propose anyone get evidence without a hand count?

Why must we endure these post-election tortuous explanations of the "stunning upsets", the amazing disparity between the exit polls and the results? Voters lied to pollsters. Voters were racists. Voters were sexists. Voters (your excuse here).

When might we CONSIDER that something is awry with the proprietary source, secret, corporate voting counting machines?

[Marrah_G]

107. There was no amazing disparity between the exit polls and the end results

There was a disparity between the pre-election polls (which ONLY count likely voter- which means voters who regularly vote in primaries)and the results. The reasons for this have been given time and again today. Massive voter turnout= unlikely voter= skewed pre-primary polls.

Stick a fork in me, I am done.

[JackRiddler]

103. I don't see why you can't add one point...

5) A hand-count of the optiscan ballots would serve to confirm points 1-4, as expected, or (if it goes the other way, unlikely as that may seem) save the Republic from usurpation by electronic election fraud.

Isn't it better to know than to make intelligent guesses?

[Marrah_G]

108. We could hand count every election and some people would still say it was rigged.

We need Election reform badly, but contesting every single election in the country is not a viable answer either.

[JackRiddler]

119. So what? We SHOULD hand-count every election.

The reasonable, practical, realistic assumption, based on history and human nature, should be that:

Every election has the potential for wrong-doing. Every vote should have a secure paper record, and every result should be automatically recounted by hand.

The cost of this would certainly be less than the consequences of corrupt government. To take the most obvious example, an automatic recount policy would have been far less than the costs of the disaster we have experienced since the fraudulent election of 2000 (which would have been reversed had the Florida recount not been stopped by an unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court).

[Marrah_G]

120. But would the recounters be trusted either?

Part of me thinks that the 2000 and 2004 elections so damaged our trust in the system that we may never get it back.

[LostinVA]

122. Thanks for the update and the congrats

I'll be very, very glad to see these threads that do nothing but divide DEMS.

It very much bothers me that HRC supporteres werwen't allowed to celebrate. As I said earlier, it was a Brandi Chastain moment.

Thanks agaim.

[creeksneakers2]

133. All points weren't made. I have one

Skinners original analysis was based on a calculation involving exit poll proportions of male and female voters. Opponents of Skinner's work said that exit polls evolve so that as returns come in the results are matched toward the final score until they are in fact the same. They argue that therefore exit polls prove nothing.

The problem with that argument is that while results do change to match the final count vote totals, additional information can't affect the exit poll male/female breakdowns. No official figures are kept on male/female turnout or candidate scores within genders.So if no new info was available on that then the male/female numbers couldn't have been altered from the original numbers. Skinner's count had to be the original one. So Skinner's case still stands, unless somebody can show me where official data came out with male/female breakdowns or provide some other explanation of how these sub-categories could have evolved.

[xultar]

144. Hillary cannot have a stunning victory without Diebold help...or at least that is what

Obama supporters want us to believe.

[EFerrari]

81. I look forward to the day when people don't require evidence of fraud

because we have a clear, transparent process in which we can confide.

[countryjake]

110. "A clear, transparent process in which we can confide"...we wish!

Unfortunately, that has never been the case, even before they had these computers with which to jiggle numbers.

I'm hearing on MSNBC now that the exit-pollers were young and inexperienced at their job...chalk that one in with the "racist, sexist, independent" problems that the pundits are foisting off onto the voters.

K&R this thread, anyway.

[orleans]

126. same here. i live in a republican county--it's been republican for as

long as i can remember

we've also used the optiscams for as long as i can remember

[Blue_In_AK]

89. Don't they have Optiscan?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

98. Even if there is a paper trail how can we know it truly reflects the votes cast?

It seems there should be a receipt given after you vote with a number on it, so that each person could confirm that the vote credited to their number is accurate.

[EFerrari]

106. NH op scan has an actual hard copy, real ballots.

In other words, there are stacks of ballots that can be recounted.

Why are we so adverse to election protection? That's the real question, imho.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

136. Yes, they CAN be counted, but they have to be counted for it to count!

Look at what it takes to get a hand recount--The margin of victory has to be miniscule, and if it isn't small enough to legally warrant an automatic hand recount, the candidate has to request it her/himself. If the candidate requests it, the other candidate and the media lambasts them (so far I think we have only experienced the Repulsives doing this to the Dems), as divisive, "sore loser" etc... then there is the endless arguing about how to count mis-marked ones... In '00 or '04 (prob both) boxes of op-scan ballots went "missing", probably in Florida. And I hate to say it but they have to be the REAL ballots for the recount to count! Wasn't it in Ohio where election officials were found busily scribbling out phony ballots? (May have been other than op-scan)

[EFerrari]

138. That's a good point. We have the same problem in San Francisco.

People point to the ballots and feel secure even though all kinds of thing can and have happened, like two cycles ago when a box of ballots was found in the bay!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

145. We have op-scan in Madison Wi, too, and I thought they were cool until 2000

I remember the ballots found in the bay! Wisconsin was a battleground state in '00 and '04, yet the margin was not close enough to merit a recount... Our exit poll vs machine tally results were way off here in '04, too (with the exit poll vs hand count results being much more in line). The votes were/are all sent to a central tabulator somewhere in the state and there is where all sorts of junk can happen. Maybe the central tabulators should be abolished and each district should count their own ballots. How hard is that to do with computers anyway? Maybe that would help somewhat anyway?

Wow...this is like deja vu, isn't it? It is as if my brain has been on hibernate regarding the details of all this stuff and now here is is again... last time I thought my head would pop from absorbing so much new info too fast, round the clock, from Nov 3 '04 through Jan '05.:toast:

[EFerrari]

146. I know. I have that old, familiar headache.

lol

:toast:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

149. but it's WORTH it -lol

Terrible, exasperating, enraging (is that a word?), but exciting, and hey- at least some hope is still alive! :patriot:

[Hutzpa]

113. Good point for the future eom

[eowyn_of_rohan]

137. The future is HERE! 2 Presidential elections have been stolen already

and in these 8 years, little to nothing has been done to protect our votes despite all our letters, protests, etc...

[Melissa G]

101. A paper trail without a secure trail of custody is still a problem.

the votes that registered 0 for Ron Paul are also a flag when 31? votes weren't counted.
That and the exit poll shift have me grumbling but not convinced yet. Machines under one person's control give me no confidence.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2645358

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x489048

[bonito]

114. There's no reason every voter can't verify their vote

And compare them with others, every time we use an ATM there's a receipt provided by diebold, this nonsense of who has to ask for verification is nonsense.

[Hekate]

134. My county has been using optical scanners on PAPER ballots for many years...

... and one year we had a recount with those selfsame paper ballots.

I think that "optical scanners" implies something solid to scan.

Hekate

[SoCalDem]

135. "paper trail" is not the answer.. there needs to be an actual BALLOT

that is infinitely recountable..

a machine "verifying" its own, or another machines "count" is not acceptable..

garbage in, garbage out..

[Perry Logan]

139. I say we investigate both the Iowa and New Hampshire results.

[EFerrari]

141. In order to rig Iowa, you'd have to kidnapp a large number of people.

Is anyone missing? :)

[Perry Logan]

142. Sounds tricky. OK, skip the Iowa thing.

[SIMPLYB1980]

148. Kick.

[Land Shark]

150. As a former election lawyer, IS THERE A PAPER TRAIL is totally the WRONG question.

Or more precisely, it at best can be only one small question of numerous questions that must be answered correctly (after investigation) to know if an election was legit or not.

Most people are thinking of a "recount" when thinking "paper trail." RECOUNTS ARE INCREDIBLY LIMITED TESTS. Not only are they no good if the chain of custody is broken after the first count and before the recount, a recount won't even detect the simple stuffed ballot box at the precinct level.

You can recount a stuffed ballot box 100 times and you will never be the wiser and all will match the original count 100 times in a row.