Technical opinions please.... WILL or CAN the NH recount show anything?

I've read different opinions here about whether a recount can actually show anything if the machines were actually hacked. I was wondering what the opinions of the experts here were and would be grateful for your replies. But could I ask... in layman's terms please. :)

a paper trail.. I voted early in FL.. still using our famous boxes... I'm not too worried since our primaries don't count for much more than an emphasis on who we prefer, but I have no idea if my vote for Edwards, tax relief, or support for our schools was counted correctly or not... on the other hand my 3 yr old was there and pushed the screen to cast the ballot... so, we're already starting young in teaching the next generation the importance of voting.. AND my husband finally changed parties... he can't vote in the primaries.. too close to the primaries to change parties... but there's no one on the repug side that he cares to vote for...

It was so cute.. then he wore the I voted sticker out of the court house... so cute. For the GE we are using optic scanner.. there is a paper and the scanner counts it.. and there is a trail for recount if we need to hand count them. We'll see how it goes then.

it will show that the Diebold machines are pieces of crap, but we already knew that, didn't we?

is my feel.

...which has been the biggest benefit of recent recounts.

As our elections have become ever more privatized, the government has lost more and more control over/knowledge of the process. When a recount happens, the corners that were cut and laws that were bent or broken are exposed.

In this specific case, we have learned that the ballots and memory cards are not handled with integrity. This means that any recounted numbers are no more valid than the first, and perhaps less so.

will be found for Hillary.

So far, the recount is showing more votes for almost everyone.

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

This is entirely to be expected because the machines are
counting votes by only looking for filled-in ovals on
the ballot forms (which look like an SAT answer form).
But some people mark their ballots incorrectly or
"creatively", drawing arrows, check marks, or what-
have-you.

In this situation, humans can correctly interpret the
"intent of the voter" and countthese votes whereas the
machines construed these ballots as "no vote cast".

Roughly speaking, the "vote gain" so far has been
proportional to the actual number of votes cast for
a candidate. This is to be expected if, say, 0.4%
of all voters screw up with about the same proportions
of voters for each candidate screwing up.

Tesha

http://www.bradblog.com/

NH CONTEST: DIEBOLD MISCOUNTS REPORTED ACROSS MANY CANDIDATES, WARDS, IN FIRST DAY OF ELECTION CONTEST HAND COUNTS
Also: Diebold Memory Cards Unaccounted For; Public Record Request by Election Integrity Advocates on Ground Reveal 550+ Votes Read as Blank by Op-Scanner in Stratham...
Clinton, Kucinich Observers There, Nobody from Obama or Edwards, Says Election Attorney...
Blogged by Brad Friedman from on the road...

(As mentioned in previous items, I'm now on the road --- currently in Oakland for the Thursday night screening of the more-ironically-named-than-ever documentary, UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections --- and doing my best to keep up while moving. So apologies for the terse reports for the moment, as I continue to roll and have limited time online.)

LATEST OUT OF NH: Disparities being found during hand-counts of ballots, in many wards, many candidates. Diebold op-scan memory cards unaccounted for at the moment, Secretary of State (SoS) doesn't track them after elections, doesn't track error reports during elections. LHS Associates (see below) handles all of it instead, according to reports on the ground. Public records request reveals hundreds of ballots in one area scanned as blank due to incorrect ink used on ballots, and other problems on LHS problem report forms.


more at the link...

It's just our votes, after all. I suppose they've already moved on to the next so called election.

The tallies really aren't changing much. Here's the current
raw data, sans the Bradblog hyperventilating:

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

Tesha

(if they have it on the machine) could be phony. Only the actual paper ballots are useful.

> For those votes made on Diebold machines we will never know. Even the "paper trail"
> (if they have it on the machine) could be phony.

Here in NH, by law, *ALL* votes are cast on paper directly
by the voter.

Bill Gardner, our much-maligned Secretary of State,
was one of principal drivers behind the passage of
that law.

Tesha


P.S.: And yes, assistive services are available at the polling
place for voters with various disabilities that might make
it difficult for them to cast their vote via the paper ballot.

I have written to Bill Gardner, the Secretary of State,
calling for furture elections to include random auditing
of the machine counts, though. I believe this will remove
the last spectre clouding New Hampshire's voting process.

Tesha

can make mistakes.

I'm not in a position to vouch for that, but so far I haven't heard anything pointing to tampering with ballots between the time they were sealed on election night and the time they were opened for the recount.

So far, the recount is picking up about 0.4% of votes previously uncounted, with Clinton benefiting slightly more than other candidates. This is consistent with experience in other op-scan recounts, where it tends to reflect human counters' ability to determine voter intent where machines cannot.