Even Chris Matthews made a remark about the exit polls differing from results.
(We tracked his comment at the time, search for the post)
In at least the case of Dennis Kucinch's recount request, the presidential contender appeared to base the request on internet buzz which raised questions about the exit polling/count results.
In the face of any noted irregularities it is more than just of value to have a recount ensue, it is a necessity.
Kucinch did not pursue a recount after those two counties and so the recount ended there for the Democratic Presidential contest in NH.
We wondered at the time why Kucinich pulled funding from the recount request when he had monies available to him. That question remains, particularly after discrepancies were found, even though they were officially explained.
Republican candidate, Albert Howard, requested a recount as well and put out a position paper on his reasoning.
It doesn't really even matter why the recounts may have been initiated to begin with. They were necessary because even a small recount showed discrepancies. Those must be explained or the election will not necessarily be trusted as accurate.
They were explained, however according to some, not adequately enough, and in fact, never. That's why we've noted Nashua Telegraph's columnist should provide names and more names. (Posted as Citizen Investigator Anonymous)
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/COLUMNISTS12/213410867/-1/columnists&disqus_reply=306159&disqus_reply=308436#comment-308436
Telegraph Columnist, Kevin Landrigan, writes the following which has raised comments to the article that follows:
Both recounts led to a flurry of sometimes hysterical, Internet-driven charges that New Hampshire’s ballot custody standards somehow left the state ripe for abuse.
Both recounts led to a flurry of sometimes hysterical, Internet-driven charges that New Hampshire’s ballot custody standards somehow left the state ripe for abuse.
Is he justified in making that statement?
We don't think he is - not without naming precisely whom he is accusing of being responsible for "sometimes hysterical, Internet-driven charges."
Let him note who exactly he has in mind, and then we can discuss whether the 'Internet-driven charges" are hysterical.
As for the New Hampshire bill which would alter how a recount can be had, there could be good reason to raise the burden, and those should be hashed out as they will be when the bill is under consideration by the NH legislature.
Citizens can then determine whether or not they should return such legislators to office depending on agreement or disagreement with their vote on this bill.
(Net the Truth Online)
Getting recount may get harder
Albert Howard, you could be the last also-ran candidate for president to get a statewide recount of the primary vote.
The Ann Arbor, Mich., Republican received only 44 votes in the primary on Jan. 8, but New Hampshire law allows any finisher to request a recount. Those who don’t come within 3 percent of the winner have to pay for it.
As The Sunday Telegraph first reported, Howard got the $60,000 to make the request from an online fundraising effort led by a hard-core North Carolina supporter of GOP candidate Ron Paul, a Texas congressman.
After getting only 2 percent, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio, paid more than $20,000 to count about 30 percent of the Democratic presidential ballots here.
Both recounts led to a flurry of sometimes hysterical, Internet-driven charges that New Hampshire’s ballot custody standards somehow left the state ripe for abuse.
Secretary of State Bill Gardner has supported a late-emerging amendment to raise the bar for a recount request. It would be added to a measure (SB 492) dealing with filling vacancies on primary ballots.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/COLUMNISTS12/213410867/-1/columnists&disqus_reply=306159#comment-306159
Discussion Blue Hampshire Note back and forth discussion of whether the BBV.org website and videotapes of NH chain of custody is engaging in a conspiracy theory concerning transport of paper ballots for the recount.
Almost exactly what we've been attempting - to engage in a discussion of what are known facts, not assertions and speculation.
Note: we've been banned from Black Box Voting's Forum. A reason has yet to be provided.
(Net the Truth Online)
Blue Hampshire
Take a step back (4.00 / 2)
Nancy, the unnecessarily conspiratorial, hostile attitude of the self styled watchdogs contribute greatly to the mindset that thinks that the Kucinich recount was frivolous. The recount revealed rare instances of human error that did not have a significant impact on the vote totals, and which can be addressed with better training. Attacking woefuly underpaid/volunteer election officials, when the recount actually proved they do a good job, is a non-starter - and isn't working too well for you, as evidenced by this bill. If we are going backwards on this issue, it may because the strategy of black box, et al, is backfiring.
Energy and persistence conquer all things.
Benjamin Franklin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 13:39:31 PM CDT
[ Parent ]
http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3899
Aggressive? (0.00 / 0)
I was having a pleasant conversation with a reporter waiting for the recount to begin when some person began videotaping our conversation and asking me who I was and why I was there. I waved her off, because it was none of her business. It was ridiculous. If there were so many problems with the election and the recount, then why did Kucinich stop before even half the state was counted? Because what ever the rare and minor human errors there may have been, the vote total was nearly what it was on the night of the election. There was no black eye for the process, other than in the eyse of a very small group of people who want to believe that the election was corrupted. As a result of their behavior, the easily available recount process NH has had is now at risk.
Energy and persistence conquer all things.
Benjamin Franklin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 20:09:48 PM CDT
http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3899
Related
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=conspiracy+theory+ballot+washing+new+hampshire&btnG=Search
Bloggers form theory New Hampshire vote was rigged
Posts question polls' inaccuracy, point to documentary on fraud
10:54 PM CST on Wednesday, January 9, 2008
By KAREN BROOKS / The Dallas Morning News
kmbrooks@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – The results weren't even in when the blogosphere started to hum with a theory that sharply divided Democrats online: Barack Obama lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton in New Hampshire because the vote was rigged.
"Something stinks in New Hampshire," a commenter posted on the popular liberal site Americablog.com.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/011008dnpolnetfraud.25173a1.html
More
Ballot-counting conspiracy theories may get a little harder to push
DavidBrooks | 06 April, 2008 08:56
http://www.area603.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=1985&blogId=6
A ballot-count conspiracy? Skeptics weigh in
Published: Saturday, January 12, 2008
By BEVERLEY WANG
The Associated Press
CONCORD – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., did better in New Hampshire precincts where presidential primary ballots were counted by machine and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., did better where ballots were counted by hand.
Those results have prompted speculation, spread on blogs, of ballot-machine tampering in Tuesday's primary and led presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich – who got less than 2 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Democratic primary – to ask for a recount.
Kucinich said he doesn't expect to benefit personally, but the integrity of the election will be questioned until the discrepancy is explained. Meanwhile election analysts say the pattern goes back at least two primaries and can be attributed to many factors, but fraud is not one of them.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080112/NEWS08/660888229/-1/news08
January 09, 2008
New Hampshire: So What Happened?
There is obviously one and only one topic on the minds of those who follow polls today. What happened in New Hampshire? Why did every poll fail to predict Hillary Clinton's victory?
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/new_hampshire_so_what_happened.php
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/10/1635225
link
1-7-08: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71200.html?1199904311
Related Bev Harris post
Posted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - 5:30 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another observation: At this stage of the game, and this may not be relevant statistically due to demographic differences in reporting locations (which are nowhere identified as far as I can tell)...
The voting machine results coming in for the Democratic candidates do not match the exit polls for the top two. Obama was the clear winner, according to reports I heard based on the exit polls. Hillary has a commanding lead from the incoming voting machine reports.
There are two stages to the projections: Exit polling, which is what people said they voted for, and voting machine results, which is what the computers report. Early projections come from exit polls, and as the evening progresses, what's coming in comes from voting machines.
We saw exit polls award the race to Gore in 2000, and then voting machines award it to Bush (and then, when the minus 16,022 votes were pulled out of the Diebold optical scan -- the same make, model and version as New Hampshire's machines), they put the candidates at a tie. A statewide hand count later showed Gore won.
In 2002, the same pattern appeared, but was more pronounced: The exit polls went one way, but when the voting machine results came in it flipped.
Watch the Dem race very carefully to see if the front runners remain flipped from the exit polls as the machine results come in.
The two areas identified as most likely to be dirty in NH are Manchester and Nashua, according to my sources on the ground there.
In New Hampshire, I expect to see the first hour's results to be mostly machine results, with some machine results withheld for the very end. The hand counts will take a little longer to come in, but since I like to make bets, I'm betting that some voting machine locations will be withheld until after the hand count places.
New Hampshire is not identifying which locations are in, unless I'm missing something at the Sec. State web site...
excerpt
Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - 12:24 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The formal detailed hand count vs opscam count info is in:
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php
Whoever did this did an excellent job.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71200.html?1199904311
Meanwhile Someone tries...
Jon Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 11:57 am:
FYI: The New Hampshire Democratic party allocates its delegates proportionally. Thus, the difference between Clinton and Obama's totals makes NO DIFFERENCE in the number of delegates they earned - each won nine.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDkQnMmIo_xXUF1vV_6VqxNpsLKgD8U24L802
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71200.html?1199904311
But is ignored
More
Recount Proves No Fraud In NH Primary
Posted by kdawson on Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:48 PM
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/25/1550212
No comments:
Post a Comment