DU INFO ALERT: Why Recounting in New Hampshire Could Save Democracy

Earlier this week I did an analysis of the New Hampshire voting data comparing 2000 to 2004 because of work posted by Faun Otter here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=11874.

The results are posted here: www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm

The biggest non-trend anomalies occur where AccuVote (Diebold) machines are used. The only way to verify what the heck is going on is to compare the RAW DATA with the REPORTED DATA and New Hampshire has a paper trail.

So I started begging/nagging for a New Hampshire recount. The problem was that only a candidate could request it. Bush wouldn't, I couldn't get a hold of Kerry despite playing Kevin Bacon for two days, and so I BEGGED Ralph Nader (ON EDIT: through his campaign team) to do it instead, and he is doing it.

I believe this is going to help heal the nation -- either there is fraud (intentional or otherwise), and it will be uncovered, or there isn't, and we need to cope. If New Hampshire shows fraud, then we move on to the next state, and the next, and the next...hopefully, before the Electoral College meets in December!

You can read some of the threads I've posted about this in greater detail over in the "Presidential" board. I'm sorry, but I've been working my tuckus off (and I've been sick with bronchitis), so I haven't been doing my part to keep folks updated. I'll try to do better.

Meanwhile, we're going to need some more volunteers on Monday to make phone calls to the states for recount qualifications. (I think the team doing that has 12 (ON EDIT: states, not people) so far!) Also, there is going to be "running different places with paperwork" requirements (this was almost our undoing on Friday!), as well as a whole bunch of other stuff that I'm sure will pop up unexpectedly. If you want to help with this effort, speak up!

TWO THINGS YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW:

1) Read this thread so you know what's going on (and keep it kicked, please) -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=24757&mesg_id=24757

2) and then then THIS thread (kick again) AND E-MAIL THE RALPH NADER STUFF TO EVERYONE like I asked (but please delete my excited commentary at the top and keep it private to DU, okay?) -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=25116&mesg_id=25116

I'll try to do better at keeping folks informed. For those who care, I can tell you straight out -- this whole thing started because of DU -- and the people who have helped out -- NBI, BBV, AND MORE -- deserve the thanks of this nation.

Its not over, people. Its only JUST BEGUN.

ON EDIT: If you don't read the thread links before making (negative) judgments, please don't bother responding. I've got too much work to do wasting my time on people who WANT to stay uninformed when the data is easily available. Also, if you don't think it will work, that's fine; everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I've still got a lot of work to do. :)

There was a logical post here, somewhere today that identified how this would backfire. Kerry won the state and if we take a deeper look, it may not be fruitful but favor *bush.....end of our mission.

Nader has never been our friend either....*bush was his sugardaddy.

if it shows fraud and all states are recounted because of that - then we win

I'm still leary....and I definitely don't trust Nader......My "gut" usually is right. Lets think thing out.....

Have you read the threads on the election fraud?

The exit polls in New Hampshire showed Kerry winning by about 15%

He then managed to eek out about a 1% victory in NH.


In order to get a recount in New Hampshire, a candidate has to request one.

That leaves Nader as the only person available to request one.
If we can show election fraud in NH we can then push for investigations in Florida and Ohio.

With polls showing a big Kerry win in NH, what are the odds that the Dems pulled a lot of hanky panky there and only ended up winning by 1%? What are the odds that the Repubs did something to change the outcome from 15% to 1%?

If we don't get a recount and investigation, Bush is Pres. If we do....maybe we get kerry as Pres.

:hi:

The exit polls in New Hampshire showed Kerry winning by about 15%

He then managed to eek out about a 1% victory in NH.

NH was the only New England state Bush won in 2000 and we're supposed to believe that a poll showing Kerry 15% ahead in this election was accurate?

because they ask real voters who they really voted for.

This is why Gore was called the winner in Florida, because more people voted for him.

Exit polls do not tell us which votes are counted though, and if counted, for whom.

Another interesting aspect of the reported vote this year in New Hampshire is that Kerry faired much better in the smaller rural conservtive counties of New Hampshire than he did in the liberal cities.

RED FLAG!

If we get a hand recount we will know for sure.

nader has ALWAYS been right about the issues. on almost every single one of them. his PROBLEM was that he had the potential to be a spoiler to kerry. he's not trying to get bush elected, he's standing up for principle, and we need to help him now

read dancingbear's post. if successful, it would show that Kerry won NH by a much larger margin and the vote fraud there was to pump up *'s PV so he could claim a mandate. demonstrating republican vote fraud in NH would open the floodgates to investigate FL, OH, etc.

sheeesh....

I'm in.......just being careful.......

Every talking head was stating that they hoped that the margin would be big enough so there would be no contesting of the election?

I thought it was really odd at the time.

I mean, it's so close according to their polls , which are already skewed to add more republican votes than have historically voted, why would they think that either candidate would have a large margin when they couldn't even predict which one? I hoped it meant that they all thought Kerry was going to win and they were covertly telling people to vote for Kerry - my mistake.

What they were really doing was to set us up, so we would think twice about questioning the results.

but if there was, expose it! Backfire be damned. The integrity of our democracy is more important than a candidate or a party.

Keep up the good work.

This raises issues of ballot chain of custody. If there was fraud, then the Nader request will already be causing some kind of cover-up. The ballots will have to be replaced. Where are they stored, who has custody, how will we know the ballots presented for recount will be the actual ballots marked by voters? Also will a recount be manual or machine?

Someone organized ahs to go after this! Protect the ballots!!

.

n/t

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=46674

Nader requests recount of NH Presidential ballot

By GARRY RAYNO
State House Bureau Chief

CONCORD — Presidential candidate Ralph Nader yesterday requested a recount of the Presidential election ballots in New Hampshire.

However, the Attorney General's Office is not treating it as a valid request because a check to pay for the recount did not accompany the request.

Both the request and the check have to be filed with the Secretary of State's Office by 5 p.m. yesterday by law.

Assistant Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch said "At this point, we don't consider this a valid request."

Nader writes "We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire. These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5 to 15 percent over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states."

more...

Don't stop fighting Ida.

Keep us updated....there is an entire battalion here to do work....

I just feel creepy with Nader involved....he sold out to *bush and I will never trust him.

I'd pee on a sparkplug if I thought it'd help. While I'm a little skeptical, I can see how the argument would play in the MSM--Kerry's supporters were willing to risk LOSING a blue state in order to make sure everything was done right.

What's the harm? I'm not seeing any downside.

a dem or a repub?

:shrug: like in Ohio, the land of Diebold

Perhaps some good can come out of this election just yet.

the NashuaTelegraph report of saturday Nov.6

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041106/NEWS02/111060040/-1/news

"Anyone who loses by more than 1 percent of the vote has to pay for a recount, he said, noting the cost statewide could be $80,000.

Nader can appeal that decision to the state Ballot Law Commission."

That would be before Wednesday.

80k sounds like a lot but i'm sure Randi Rhodes would spread the word to have people chip in.

There was an article in the NH paper that the Atty General was discounting the request because it wasn't accompanied by a check. Can you speak to this issue at all? Thanks.

It will either uncover massive irregularities and fraud, or it will show the exit polls were seriously out of whack.

If it shows the exit polls are out of whack, not the votes, then charges of fraud in other states based on statistical differences between exit polls and results will be seriously weakened.

If it shows irregularities and these irregularities were an organized attempt by Rove and friends it could bring down the President.

The good news is that NH law mandates a paper trail, and that the electronic voting is low-tech (not BBV), even where using Diebold equipment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/28/national1609EST0710.DTL

I'm very hopeful, but keep an eye on these paper trails.

I'm not a "newbie" as my number of posts suggests. I've been lurking for a year and a half... cuz... well, never mind, it's a long story. Anyway, over the past few days, I've noticed a BIG increase in the number of "newbies". Why do you suppose that is?

when the exit polls show him winning the state by a wide margin??

:wtf:

for the love of god people, have some common sense.

Is there still gonna be one?

I'm not a big Nader fan,

but at the same time, if Nader wanted to show fraud on Kerry's part, don't you think he would have chosen a state where the exit polls showed a much slimmer margin of victory, and not NH where it was irrefutably in Kerry's favor??

Nader couldn't possibly show fraud on Kerry's part in NH without also showing that the exit polls were somehow wildly off or flawed.

In other words, the wide descrepancy in the exit polls and the results in NH clearly points only to fraud on the part of the Bush people. And it has to be Nader's MO in asking for the recount there, in order to expose the fraud.

If the recount happens in NH and fraud is shown, are there steps in place to move on to a bigger prize, such as Florida? I know you're swamped right now with New Hampshire alone, but is there something the rest of us can do to lay some groundwork?

On Monday we need some more people making phone calls to Sec of States on Monday for recount details (PM me if interested), and I need some people to do some media blasting as mentioned here -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=26802&mesg_id=26802 -- please? :) Best, Ida

because a check didn't accompany it? What's happening, Ida?

We're hoping the NH Sec of State will be reasonable, which is why I'm asking folks to do some media blasting so he might feel a tad more "reasonable" with a little public pressure.... :)