So far the recount is showing discrepancies

Pete Kay

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
763
For everybody! This just goes to show you how unreliable the Diebold machines are. Nearly every ward where there has been a recount so far has been off. Most of the time by just a few votes. But that is enough when added up to affect a close election.


http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm

How to read these results:
These results are from the DEMOCRATIC recount only. The towns listed below are the towns where the recount is complete. The set of numbers under the candidate(s) name reflect the number of votes reported to the Secretary of State's office after the January 8, 2008 Presidential Primary Election. The number to the right (under the column marked "recount") is the number of votes the candidate(s) received after the recount of votes in that town.

The republican candidates listed at the end of this tally (indicated by the r next to their name) are candidates who received WRITE-IN votes on democratic ballots.

Note: Some wards show no totals for Ron Paul and other candidates in the recount column. These are wards that hav not been recounted yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Machine Precints?

Do you know if these are all machine precints? or are they mixed?

I am fascinated- thanks for posting.

I think a 'properly working' machine would be dead-on. You know in college most of our exams were graded by optical scan machines - I don't remember them being wrong much.... What do you all think? Wouldn't a 'good' machine be pretty much perfect? I know sometimes the circles might be messed up or something- but still.....
 
Last edited:
If the NH recount shows the votes were all miscounted, wat do you bet America never sees a word of it reported on the news..except maybe local NH stations
 
almost everyone is getting more votes than previously recorded. its not like the votes were transferred from one candidate to the other. still, handcount over dielbold, anyday!
 
from Bev Harris:


1-16-08: How New Hampshire is sizing up
We are finding in New Hampshire: the best of the best in MOST situations, but considerable naivete and in some areas, and an alarming and wilfull negligence.

Among the "best of the best" of New Hampshire situations:

(1) Beautiful, community oriented hand counted paper ballots in more than one hundred jurisdictions.

(2) Very democratic and participatory township structure of government, combined with very high level of representation of local areas in the state legislature

(3) Amazing level of responsiveness of public officials. Secretary of State Bill Gardner, for example, answers questions personally and tirelessly from just about everyone. Many, many high level officials perfectly willing to talk with and answer all questions from the public.

(4) Beautiful, participatory 100% hand counted recounts.

(5) Very good public records laws. If they have it in their possession, they let you see it THAT DAY. Along those lines, Paddy Shaffer did a hand written records request today which elicited some very good information. The dream team here is in the process of editing another request as I write this.

On the almost schizophrenically BAD side:

(1) A reckless reliance on a sole source private contractor. Not particularly bothered that the company has private chain of custody during critical points, no policy or even apparent concern with having convicted felons involved in the voting system.

(2) Use of a system with known defects without even taking any mitigation steps that other states took.

(3) NO REQUIREMENT to even save the memory cards. The explanation is that they get a disk with the "program" on it. VotersUnite attorney Jon Bonifaz questioned the assistant attorney general on this closely today, because federal law requires records retention of 22 months on electronic media.

New Hampshire has a haphazard policy of allowing the memory cards to be kept, or not, with a chain of custody, or not, shipping back to LHS, or not, and it's perfectly okay with New Hampshire if the memory cards are erased altogether the day after the election. They profess to believe that if they just have LHS ship them a disk containing some purported program -- BEFORE the election, when there aren't even any votes registered -- everything is okay. No one could tell us if this is the memory card program, or the GEMS database file, or the optical scan chip. They seem to have no idea what they are doing with this and I would call this wilfull ignorance...

source: http://blackboxvoting.org/
 
Last edited:
Do you know if these are all machine precints? or are they mixed?

I am fascinated- thanks for posting.

I think a 'properly working' machine would be dead-on. You know in college most of our exams were graded by optical scan machines - I don't remember them being wrong much.... What do you all think? Wouldn't a 'good' machine be pretty much perfect? I know sometimes the circles might be messed up or something- but still.....

According to this blogger who is onsite observing the recount, these problems have arisen form improper marking on the ballots. Some wards missed hundreds of votes because of they used the wrong type of ink. He also said that ALL the memory cards for the Diebold machines have gone missing. There are attorneys onsite observing as well.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5568
 
So far the recount is showing minuscule discrepancies

Thread title fixed for you.

You do realize everyone is gaining and losing small numbers of votes, and it won't affect the overall percentages or rankings (much less the only important thing, delegates)?
 
This is about verifying the integrity of the democratic process. Why don't you go work on delegates then? No one is stopping you.
 
Statistical wash. C'mon people, move on already.

It seems that way from just looking at the wards, but when you add up the totals then there becomes a large discrepency. When you take two candidates who were close in vote totals, like Giuliani and Paul, then there is the possibility of a fluctuation in placement in the elections.
 
Ward 11 gives Paul 300% more votes and takes from Romney.

Hillsborough County Paul, r Recount Romney, r Recount Shepard, r Recount Supreme, r Recount Tancredo, r Recount
Manchester Ward 1 5 5 8 8 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 2 2 2 10 10 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 3 3 3 6 5 - - - - - -
Manchester Ward 4 5 5 6 7 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 5 3 9 - - -
Manchester Ward 6 2 2 15 15 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 7 3 3 - - -
Manchester Ward 8 2 2 13 16 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 9 6 6 8 8 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 10 5 5 14 13 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 11 2 6 9 7 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 12 - 3 - 11 - - - - - 0
Recount
 
This is about verifying the integrity of the democratic process. Why don't you go work on delegates then? No one is stopping you.

Exactly. If the recount shows any candidate off by a percentage point, well that may seem small but it can affect the elctions in a big way. It would also prove that Diebold machines should not be used at all.
 
Ward 11 gives Paul 300% more votes and takes from Romney.

Hillsborough County Paul, r Recount Romney, r Recount Shepard, r Recount Supreme, r Recount Tancredo, r Recount
Manchester Ward 1 5 5 8 8 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 2 2 2 10 10 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 3 3 3 6 5 - - - - - -
Manchester Ward 4 5 5 6 7 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 5 3 9 - - -
Manchester Ward 6 2 2 15 15 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 7 3 3 - - -
Manchester Ward 8 2 2 13 16 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 9 6 6 8 8 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 10 5 5 14 13 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 11 2 6 9 7 - - - - - 0
Manchester Ward 12 - 3 - 11 - - - - - 0
Recount

You are talking about votes I could count on my hands. Any time you count something more than once with human error intertwined you will get different numbers.

Marking ballots with ink pens DOES introduce a human element, and optical recognition is not going to be 100% accurate in that regard.

I thought we were smarter than this.
 
South Carolina Vote is Already Stolen

South Carolina has electronic voting machines with NO PAPER TRAIL. Expect a stolen election, again.

default.jpg
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUpN5GaOjkY
 
Don't forget that humans are MORE likely to make counting mistakes than the machines. If there's a discrepancy, it seems like nobody here has even considered that the human counters could be off by a few votes.

The purpose of this job is to see that there was no hacking of the machines or other types of fraud. The machines will produce a more accurate count than the humans, but I still don't like them due to the hacking possibility.
 
Back
Top