Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Diebold miscounts reported across many candidates, wards in 1st day of NH recount -- bradblog

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

dorkulon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 11:42 AM
Original message

Diebold miscounts reported across many candidates, wards in 1st day of NH recount -- bradblog

Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 11:45 AM by dorkulon

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5568

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...

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.

* * *

Numbers are now being posted from both the Democratic and Republican hand-counts in the NH Primary Election contest. So far, only wards in Manchester (Hillsborough County) have been hand-counted, and disparities between the original counts from the Diebold optical-scan machine and the hand inspections seem to be occurring in many wards, and for many candidates.

Here is the SoS Recount page with the totals, that I haven't yet been able to review in full.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5568

edit: fixed a link

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Labors of Hercules

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message

1. I smell trouble...

:popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #1

12. What trouble? His title is misleading

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Labors of Hercules

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #12

18. The trouble is, the machines are off....

It doesn't matter in whose favor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #18

21. These are very small errors

There will always be small errors, which is why if the percentages are too close you recount.

NH is not Ohio- That was a very difference scenario

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Labors of Hercules

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #21

48. Many little errors make one rather large error...

first rule of accounting: even small errors tend to compound on each other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arthritisR_US

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #48

49. Only if the errors are one sided. These errors are very small

and they are across all candidates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #48

51. No, even the total errors are small- go look yourself

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Labors of Hercules

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #51

56. You know, after Florida in 2000...

Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 03:25 PM by Labors of Hercules

you'd think it would be easier to see the importance of the fact that almost every precinct count has been adjusted. It doesn't matter by how much, when you multiply it over an entire state in a two person matchup (such as in the General Election), it can mean the difference between 8 years of progress or 8 years of hell.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AndyA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message

2. This is beginning to stink like last week's raw fish left in the trash.

Electronic voting machines are not capable of accurate vote counts. It's been proven time and time again. Whether due to operator error, programming abnormalities, fraud, or whatever, it all adds up to the samem thing: electronic voting must be abolished.

There must be a paper trail, and if electronic machines are used, a paper count must be done to verify the results. Period. Anything less is unacceptable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Winterblues

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #2

7. They didn't use electronic voting machines there.

People voted on Paper Ballots, marked with pencil or pens and used machines to count those ballots. That is very much different than using machines to vote for you..There is likely to still be problems though in thar some ballots won't be able to be read by the machines for what ever reason. I am for 100% paper ballots, counted by election judges, real live people....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2

10. Did you actually go through the numbers on the Link?

Clinton- Add 41
Obama- add 14
Edwards- Add 11

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabbat hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #2

39. so far 99.6% accurate

is a hand count by humans (who are by definition prone to human error), any more accurate than 99.6%?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 11:58 AM
Response to Original message

3. It looks like those who insisted that Clinton got a "benefit" from the machine counted

votes might have to retract their assertions, if these numbers hold.

If Hillsborough County is an indicator, she got screwed out of way more votes than Obama did. And Obama made out (very slightly) in one or two precincts.

Time will tell.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #3

11. Clinton-Add 41; Obama-Add 14; Edwards- Add 11 that is with almost all of Hillsborough done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zanne

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #11

29. As I said before, Hillsborough is a TINY town.

You can't discount the recount there because there aren't alot of voters in that small town.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Subdivisions

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #29

31. They would hide any cheating in higher density areas. I'm not

buying all the hype. But I am grateful for this recount - even if it proves to be merely educational.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #31

35. This is for Manchester in hillsborough COUNTY- not the town of Hillsborough

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zanne

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #35

44. Just out of curiosity...

Where is the link you're getting your information from? I'd like to check it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #44

50. Here- Secretary of state's recount page

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #29

33. Hillsboroughh County- City of Manchester

The Numbers I posed were for Manchester.

Wards 1-12- 5 and 7 are still being counted

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zanne

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #33

41. There are twelve wards....

Were you talking about Hillsborough County or Hillsboro, NH?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #41

43. County- sorry for the mistake- go here for the results

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zanne

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #33

52. I know that Manchester is the most conservative city in the state.

I live in Manchester and this city tends to vote conservative. I don't know if that adds to the discussion; just thought I'd point it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #29

47. Yeah, but it's a HUGE county--for NH, anyway. NT

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #11

46. Yeah, but the people who were griping were INSISTING that there was some

nefarious scheme where the people in the small, hand-counted, rural areas were a TRUE reflection of the vote (IOW, Obama voters predominated), and that somehow, the 'machine' was flipping votes so that Clinton got more than her earned share.

What's happened in Hillsborough is that the Clinton lead WIDENED, if only slightly.

Thus, that argument--so far, anyway--doesn't hold water.

I'll bet that even if they recount every single paper ballot in the state, ten times, there will still be people who raise the "Cheat" card, just because they don't care for the results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

riqster

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:00 PM
Response to Original message

4. There's another thread on this topic in ER

Can't believe this one hasn't been banished yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabbat hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message

5. not that much trouble so far

at least from the link that you posted the numbers are verifying, off maybe by one or two either way in a couple of precincts.

If there was widespread fraud I would expect to see large swings in votes. But in this county the numbers are pretty darn close to the original count.
if you consider a swing of 10 votes in an entire county a problem then well there is one. But I would bet that with any system you might have such a difference in counts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

papau

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. I agree

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue Congress

(154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message

6. K&R

Thanks for the information!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message

9. Your title is really misleading.

Difference in Hillsborough so far:

Clinton- Add 41 votes
Obama- Add 14 votes
Edwards- Add 11 Votes

There is not HUGE miscount going on.

This is a very small margin of error

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabbat hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #9

13. not to mention the fact

that people were complaining/claiming that the vote was a fraud in favor of Hillary. Looks like so far she gained the most votes by the hand recount.

unless people are going to say there is fraud with the hand recounts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. You know some will.... the bigger question is....

Why are you hunting Sabbats????

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabbat hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #14

55. It is from

an old role playing game called Vampire:the Masquarade. The Sabbat were the bad/evil vampires. Being a jewish pagan I actually found humor in how they used the term.

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dorkulon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #9

54. It's not my title; it's bradblog's.

I just know people are waiting for updates on this. I doubt it'll turn out to be a 'rigged' vote. I do think, however, that vote-counting should work better than this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OPERATIONMINDCRIME

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message

15. LMAO AT THE HYPED UP HYSTERIA!!!!!! LOL

Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 12:52 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME

So far, the handcounts are accurate to within a THIRD of a percent. I realllllllllly don't think that justifies the melodramatic hyped up sensationalized as always article on Brad Blog, do you? :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dmallind

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message

16. So with a sample size equivalent to asking

about 7 million voters who they prefer in a national race (6.5% of total) the machine count was 99.5% accurate and actually UNDERCOUNTED the votes of the candidate who supposedly benefitted (this assumes the hand recount is accurate - anyone who has done any kind of quality engineer work will tell you that's not all that likely).

We cried wolf. We don't even get a glimpse of a chihuahua from 50 miles away.

Let's hope I'm at least wrong about how this gets spun in the mnedia and how it completely discredits any genuine challenge to any real effect of election fraud.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #16

17. Bingo

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OPERATIONMINDCRIME

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #16

19. Yup. Actually, Right Now It Is 99.62% Accurate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tesha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16

37. Bingo. (Echo??) (NT)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zorra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message

20. Awesome. Kucinich's call for a recount is now completely justified.

Hopefully it will get messier.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #20

22. Messier? What mess are you seeing- have you checked the numbers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zorra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #22

26. "hundreds of ballots in one area scanned as blank

due to incorrect ink used on ballots, and other problems on LHS problem report forms."

What mess are you not seeing? Would you be happy with your bank if they repeatedly had problems with inept or corrupt personnel and faulty equipment, and the balance on your bank statement was repeatedly incorrect?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #26

27. I'll wait until I see something official on that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #26

36. They hand counted that precinct I believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tesha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #26

38. BradBlog's description doesn't seem to match reality. Go here:

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

You won't find "hundreds" of votes being found.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabbat hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #26

42. do you expect

100% accuracy? If so you will never get it. No matter how the votes are counted there will be errors. Whether human or machine. The goal is to make it as close to 100% as possible. Right now the accuracy is 99.6%, which does not show any repeated problems, faulty equipment or inept/corrupt people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #20

53. It won't get messier--the people who were crying FRAUD! will disappear into the woodwork.

As they do....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue Congress

(154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message

23. Interesting info from the ron paul board...

Am I allowed to post this link? There is an ongoing discussion about the recount...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=92100&page=9

Quote:
Originally Posted by steph3n View Post
I would highly recommend Dennis have the Plymouth area recounted, he had 20+ yard signs in this area and less votes than that

You need to get that information to him.

I already called and suggested he do the whole state.

I also suggested he put a place on his website so that people could donate online specifically to the recount.

You can find the number to call at the bottom of his website dennis4president.com.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #23

25. So he can spend more money on something that was already correct?

The count is 99.62 % correct right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue Congress

(154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #25

28. They have only just begun the recount

and apparently Dennis has only paid enough to recount a few counties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zanne

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #28

30. I'm anxious to see the Manchester numbers.

Biggest city in NH, even if it is a conservative one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marrah_G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #30

32. I posted them above- a-l but 2 precints in Manchester are done- change Clinton to 46 though

Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 01:27 PM by Marrah_G

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabbat hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #23

45. 20+ signs

were there multiple signs on one lawn? I have seen this many times.

Also sometimes people put signs on their neighbors lawns because their neighbors don't care one way or another (i have personally seen this done too)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Botany

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:04 PM
Response to Original message

24. #s look good to me

Hillary picks up more votes than Obama ...

Nothing jumps out "a red flag."

I did not look @ the repubs #s.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue Congress

(154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message

34. They are doing the recount by machine??

"there were some 550 ballots that were not read by the op-scan at all. They were seen as blank ballots. Officials there noticed the problem, and then hand-counted some 3000 ballots after the error was discovered."

Only when a mistake is found they recount by hand??

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tesha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-17-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #34

40. Nope. They hold up each ballot before observers...

Nope. Workers for the state hold up each ballot before the
observers (with Clinton and Kuch observers being the only
ones who cared to be present), indicate which candidate's
pile they're going to place the ballot onto, and then
wait for the observers to assent to that decision.

If all the observers agree, the ballot goes on that
candidate's pile. If an observer objects, the ballot goes
to the Secretary of State for a decision. The observers
can then accept that decision or challenge further.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:12 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

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