Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Daily Kos - "Enough with the "Diebold Hacked the NH Primary" Lunacy"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 12:42 AM
Original message
Daily Kos - "Enough with the "Diebold Hacked the NH Primary" Lunacy"


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176

New Hampshire has no touchscreen voting. None.

Every ballot cast in New Hampshire except those few cast by the handicapped is written on a piece of paper. It's redundant to say this after the previous comment about touchscreen voting, but let's make it clear: in New Hampshire there is a paper trail.

The Diebold Accuvote-TS has been shown to be a piece of crap. The Diebold Accuvote-OS, the machine used in New Hampshire, has much of the same hardware and runs much of the same tabulation software, so these machines could conceivably be hacked. However, the incentive for hacking them is not very great, because unlike with the paperless voting, again, there's the paper trail. So if there were ever a recount—and there was after the 2004, when a survey of New Hampshire voting districts chosen by the Nader campaign showed there was virtual no difference between the scanned tabulation and the hand recount—the malfeasance would be easily discovered.

Many folks immediately suspect that any election results they found surprising—and whether they know enough about local and statewide voting patterns to be surprised is always a good question—are most easily explained by malfeasance by the Diebold corporation or exploitation of its machines. There are many problems for these folks who look for the most exotic (and maybe reassuring) explanation for an election result they don't like, but in this case, let's start out with a fairly basic one: voters in every town in New Hampshire cast their vote on a paper ballot, and in more than half of the towns in New Hampshire, the paper ballots are counted by hand.


Submitted knowing it will never convince the die-hard Bevemites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. the mandate must be transparent and verifiable voting for all
not just some.

lets prove it and compare a hand count to the hackable error prone tabulation machines.

cause its ONLY the machine counted votes that are out of whack

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Source please?
I can't read the text.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Out of whack? Does that mean they didn't provide the result you wanted?
Why yes, that IS what it means.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. No MADem. That's not what it means.
It means that some of us still possess some critical thinking skills and don't rely on corporate whores to create our reality. Don't forget that these are the same people that shoved the "inaccurate, worthless" exit poll bullshit down our throats in 2004. I find it interesting that NOW these very same corporate whores can't complete a sentence without citing an exit poll.

You may have forgotten. I haven't. I'm not going to allow these people to sell me another worthless bill of goods. Been there. Done that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Well, that's a load of....DRAMA. Corporate WHORES, eh?
Why would you support a candidate who was such a fucking WUSS that he wouldn't stand up for himself if he were CHEATED, eh? A candidate who would let himself be cheated when that wrong is simply righted would make a LOUSY LEADER. No guts, no glory, after all.

Recounts are easy to do in NH. WHY?

Every voter gets a PAPER ballot. Some are counted by hand, others by machine. But those paper ballots are STILL there. It's a small state, easy to do a recount. It could be done fairly quickly, too.

Now, if Clinton "cheated" (because she's your cheating corporate WHORE, is that it??) and your candidate called her on it, she'd be sent off to do her STREETWALKING elsewhere--her race would be over. She'd be shunned, excoriated, shamed.

But the reason your candidate doesn't challenge the results is because HIS internal polling matched the results. See, the only ones surprised were you. Not HRC's opponents. That is why they conceded GRACIOUSLY. They KNEW.

Bottom line--she won because female voters in NH got sick and tired of people tossing around WHORE words and sexist horseshit. This is the 21st Century, after all--but around here, you'd think that "the bitch had a helluva lotta nerve to DARE try to take on a man's job." That IS how it sounds up in here. You contribute to that atmosphere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Show me where I stated that HRC cheated in NH. You can't.
Loud, brazen windbags contribute just as much. Take a good look in the mirror.

I simply stated a fact. If you can't deal with it...tough. We've been sold a load of bullshit before. That was the long and short of my post.

Some of us still possess critical thinking skills. If YOU choose to injest every piece of crap that comes your way that's your business.

Have a lovely evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. What fact? There's nothing in your post save vicious INSINUATION and opinion
As well as gratuitous use of the WHORE word when discussing the only female candidate in the running. Very subtle, that. NOT.
You've got some fucking moxie using the "loud, brazen windbag" phrase--project much? I speak softly, but this diatribe sure fits that category:



It means that some of us still possess some critical thinking skills and don't rely on corporate whores to create our reality. Don't forget that these are the same people that shoved the "inaccurate, worthless" exit poll bullshit down our throats in 2004. I find it interesting that NOW these very same corporate whores can't complete a sentence without citing an exit poll.

You may have forgotten. I haven't. I'm not going to allow these people to sell me another worthless bill of goods. Been there. Done that.


How many times are you going to repeat the phrase "critical thinking skills?" You can call yourself a pink princess, that doesn't make you one--and you haven't demonstrated said skills in your recent posts.

Some of us still possess critical thinking skills. If YOU choose to injest every piece of crap that comes your way that's your business.



I'm not the one doing the "inJEST-ing" here--rather than ingesting, it would seem you are more into distributing--but your posts really should be 'in jest' because I can't take them seriously at all. You toss out opinion and call it fact, and get all shirty when it's noted that you don't back up your vague whines with anything save more carping about your swell "critical thinking skills."

Whatever, there, pink princess! Your candidate COULD HAVE, but didn't challenge the results because your candidate KNEW that the results reflected his internal polling. NH has PAPER BALLOTS. Every voter got one. Your candidate needs to just ask for a recount, and that fraud will be revealed!!!!

Except there isn't any fraud.

But hey, it's way easier to accuse that WHORE of stealing the prize--that mean old Jezebel did it all by herself!--than doing what your candidate did, and accept and acknowledge the decision of the voters of NH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Blah, blah, blah...
Edited on Thu Jan-10-08 03:25 AM by fooj
Exit polls were deemed unreliable and innaccurate the evening of the
2004 General Election. That's not opinion. That's fact.

Make up your mind...am I a pink princess or a sexist? BWAHAHAHAHA! You certainly can dish it out, can't you? "I speak softly"... what a laugh. All anyone needs to do is read your two posts to see how accurate YOUR projections are. Get over yourself. I certainly have.

I'm calling it a night. Go find someone else to bully. I've taken enough of your abusive comments to last me a lifetime.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. This isn't 2004. Speak to the issues, not to ancient history.
And Bwahahahaha yourself, apparently you're easily amused. The pink princess remark was a deliberate rebuke to your enthusiastic use of the W word.

I see you can dish it out, but boy oh, boy, you sure can't take it, can you? Why is that unsurprising?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. I am no Hilary supporter
yet, based on the evidence she won NH. Now I can cite tons of reason why she won, some are probably even what did happen, but skulduggery was not in the cards.

If folks are going to claim fraud in NH, a state WITH NO digital ballots, it is going to be a LONG election.

Bev's doing fine work here. We used to worry about REPUBLICANS stealing elections, now we are more concerned about people on OUR side stealing elections.

I have problems with ALL our candidates. However, ANY of them, will be an massive improvement over that criminal fuck in there now. We forget this out our peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. I agree. And if there were skulduggery, it would be so easy to prove it.
One voter, one ballot. A recount in 'suspicious' (whatever the hell that means) areas where the votes were machine counted would easily turn up discrepancies if there were any.

If a candidate suspected fraud, it would be the SMART thing to do--because it would get 'the winner' gone. She'd have to skulk away in shame, her momentum would evaporate, she'd be tainted.

I think the candidates' internal polling predicted a tight race, and this result was completely UNsurprising.

But hey, some people love that piling on.

I'm down to Edwards or Clinton, since Richardson dropped out. I'll probably vote by flipping a coin if there isn't any more clarity between now and Super Tuesday. I just can't get past Obama's cravenness with that McClurkin thing. It hurt the feelings of one of my relatives terribly, who had been working (hard) for the Obama campaign but quit in disbelief and disgust.

All politics IS local, donchaknow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Very nice! Can you do the Republican side too?
I believe everything was fine on their side.

Thanks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. That graph is incorrect
Exit polls had Hillary at 39%, not 35%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. nope....only polls adjusted by results had her at that number...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Where is proof they had her at 35%?
The gender breakdown numbers weren't adjusted and they were right on the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. They could not have adjusted the gender break downs
and they showed the exact score. Where is this 35% coming from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
31. heres some unadjusted by results polls
NH-Pres (D)
Jan 8 Suffolk Univ.Obama 39%, Clinton 34%, Edwards 15% ..

Jan 8 RasmussenObama 37%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 19% ...NH-Pres (R)

Jan 8 ZogbyObama 42%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 17% ...NH-Pres (R)


http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/exit_polls_obama_and_mccain_ah.html
8:01 pm
Obama 39%
Clinton 34%
Edwards 18%

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/exit-poll-obama.html
8:10pm
Sen. Barack Obama: 39%.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: 38%.



proof the networks are editing their results....
9:08 PM Exit poll has been reweighted and combined with town-by-town returns from sources suggest Senator Clinton may very well win by two points. - JOHN McINTYRE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. I had forgotten that NH did a recount and verified results
thats a happy thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. Why are you trying to convince the die-hard Bevemites
JUST HAND COUNT THE PAPER BALLOTS? I don't have a problem with Hand Counting the Paper Ballots do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. We've addressed this issue before
in detail. You are impervious to logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. We got plenty of time to Hand Count the Paper Ballots
in NH, its only the primaries. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
29. Then get out there and count them
The state is 100% paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. I'm an election inspector and I have a HUGE problem with...
hand counts.

About a thousand people in each ED in this town with four people to set up, monitor things all day, clean up, and count. Takes us half an hour tops to count the votes on our ancient lever machines, and maybe another half hour for the rest of the stuff we have to do.

That's after 9PM when the polls close, and we've been there since 5:30 AM.

And we have NEVER had a question about the counts.

So, you like hand counting a stack of ballots? Come on in and do it yourself after a 16 hour day, big shot.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
27. My friend, you are wasting electrons
Kster issues proclamations on how elections are to be conducted. Kster doesn't soil his hands with doing any actual work which might better inform his opinion on the matters. All ballots must be counted by hand, regardless of how prone to fraud or inaccuracy that may be.

Anyone who says differently is drawing a check from Diebold and/or hates children.

Genuine reformers, especially people who have actually done the grunt work of working in precincts, educating the public, hounding legislators, organizing grassroots campaigns, working on legislative committees to actually draft real laws, getting the laws passed, defending the laws from legal challenges, and watching to see that the laws are followed, are people to be ignored in Kster's universe.

People who simply spout uninformed drivel, then ask for donations to support that drivel, these are the heroes of Kster's universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
9. Kos booted members for discussing 2004 vote fraud.

Hardly an unbiased opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday_Morning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly...
even when an election's stolen 5 different ways, he gets his undies in a bunch about it. How dare we suggest such a thing?

Although, he relented somewhat and now lets one person blog about election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Did you see bradblog's note on the 'one person' ?

I guess that one person got beat-up bad when he reported on New Hampshire.

www.bradblog.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday_Morning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. No - what did he report?
I'm currently reading the comments section of the Chris Floyd article that's #1 on DU's greatest page right now...a lot of talk about our tendency not to want to confront uncomfortable truths.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/The_Bomb_in_the_Shadows%3A_Proliferation%2C_Corruption_and_the_Way_of_the_World/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
26. Kos didn't write the post
Another editor did.

As I recall, people got booted for posting wild, demonstrably false allegations.

Ohio was stolen in 2004, but the theft was pretty low tech. Simply don't put extra voting machines in Dem districts where they were needed, resulting in people (Dems) not voting due to long lines.

Add to this a SoS who was prepared to stack the deck against any recount attempts, and you hand the election to Bush.

Effective and legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
14. This is an entirely ridiculous debate
We don't really learn anything from holding the so-called election that we didn't know before. The votes will be/were counted in secret. The expected result and the actual result are inherently uncertain. Nobody should be trying to convince anybody that fraud did or did not happen on the basis of what passed for an election yesterday. Hand count all the ballots, then lets have a civil conversation.

I recommend reading this new piece by Rady Ananda at OpEdNews:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rady_ana_080109_inherent_uncertainty.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. The best part we are no longer alone on this
it is now a Democratic and Republican issue, an AMERICAN issue!

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd335.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
18. I ask for a verifiable recount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. So do I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
25. So audit the damned things already!
It is not enough that elections BE accurate; we have to KNOW that they are accurate, and we don't.

--David Dill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC