READER COMMENTS ON

"Huge New Diebold Disparities Found in Manchester, Ward 5 During NH Hand Counts"

(128 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Jody Holder said on 1/17/2008 @ 6:35 pm PT...





Brad: You posted your blog at 6:26. I was writing the following on the blog at Black Box Voting at the same time. What I wrote follows. I did do the math and percentages. Something is fishy. I do not know which precincts were hand counted and which were machine counted, so those that know may let us know.

In reviewing the results of the first days recount in Hampshire County I noticed something unusual. In particular Manchester Ward 5. The recount confirmed the same count for all Democratic candidates other than Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson. All of those candidates LOST votes. The error rate percentages are very high, ranging from 9.3% to 15.2%. The actual lost votes and error rates are: Edwards: minus 38 votes 14.9%

Clinton: minus 64 votes 9.3%

Kucinich: minus 3 votes 13.04%

Obama: minus 39 votes 9.6%

Richardson: minus 7 15.2% Now if this is a handcounted precinct some may make the argument that this proves the inherent inaccuracy of hand-counted ballots. I would counter that with this high of percentages of inaccurate counts there was either deliberate miscounting, or missing ballots. I would want to compare the number of people that actually voted with the total of ballots involved in the recount. If this was a Diebold AccuVote optical scan precinct then these percentages could be the result of several possibilities:

1. Someone ran the same ballots through the optical scanner more than once at the precint.

2. The machines were miscalibrated or the ballots were marked with the wrong marking tool.

3. The ballot definitions used to assign vote credits were defective, programmed incorrectly, or manipulated.

4. There are missing ballots.

5. The GEMS program did not tabulate or report the totals accurately. The original total for the above 5 candidates was 1,411. In the recount there was a cumulative vote loss of 151, an average error rate of 10.7%. Now if there were vote switching that would mean that the total of votes would remain the same, just the crediting of those votes would change. In this case all the vote totals remained the same for the other candidates other than the five main ones. If there was an error in the scanning, tabulating, or reporting it should have affected some of the smaller candidate's numbers, which did not happen. Many other precincts had errors both positive and negative, but none as large as Manchester Ward 5. What sticks out even more is the fact that the error is consistently negative for the candidates.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/17/2008 @ 6:38 pm PT...





Not my strong suit and of course, the sample above is too small, but is it a bit consistent to have about a 10% difference between the totals, almost 15% with Edwards? You would expect more votes because of votes not counted by the machines, but less?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... bruce said on 1/17/2008 @ 6:45 pm PT...





Sent to WMUR:

Excuse me? "The continuing Democratic primary recount in New Hampshire has not found any voting problems."

this is a patently false statement and is obviously an attempt to deceive New Hampshire citizen's. One has to wonder whether there is editorial bias based on politics or simply lack of due diligence in investigating this story(which would be a good example of lack of journalistic ethics).

Don't you think the citizen's of New Hampshire deserve accuracy in the news presented them?

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/17/2008 @ 6:51 pm PT...





How many matches per candidate per precinct were there, between the "election" and the recount?

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... josh said on 1/17/2008 @ 6:55 pm PT...





awww Obama supporters...Hillary still won.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Mark A. Adams JD/MBA said on 1/17/2008 @ 7:16 pm PT...





Hello, Brad! I know that you can only cover so many things, but how about a lead story on the Brad Blog on this! An Open Letter to Senator John Edwards: The Constitution Prohibits Secret Vote Counting! Will You Take Action?

http://www.opednews.com/...an_open_letter_to_se.htm Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina states, “the ballots shall not be counted in secret.” Computers count inside their case, with no oversight, just like they are told to do, unless of course, they malfunction or are hacked. This is the election integrity jackpot, a Constitutional provision prohibiting counting votes in secret! No more need to refer to case law, evidence, or logic to argue against secret vote counting, at least in South Carolina. Senator Edwards, you have courageously spoken out against touch screen voting. Will you take action to require South Carolina to follow the law? If Edwards takes action, I can hear JOHN STEWART on the DAILY SHOW saying, “John Edwards has taken legal action to protect the Constitutional rights of Republicans. You know, those guys whose leaders don’t care about Constitutional rights!” It would explode across America!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... bruce said on 1/17/2008 @ 7:16 pm PT...





Josh, apparently you haven't gotten the message despite Brad hi-lighting what the recount is about and IT IS NOT ABOUT WHO WON OR LOST; GET IT ??

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... bedir than average said on 1/17/2008 @ 7:19 pm PT...





Josh, you know that off of a vastly incomplete recount that shows Obama gaining votes compared to Hillary?

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Daisy said on 1/17/2008 @ 7:37 pm PT...





Based on the current NH recount results, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all lost exactly 12 votes. They gained a little in many towns and lost a bunch in Manchester Ward 5, but all lost 12 votes after all. Isn't this very suspicious? It looks like Richardson lost all his votes in Bedford. Is this typo?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/17/2008 @ 8:01 pm PT...





I sent this to WMUR: "No voting problems? In District 5 in Manchester Diebold gave Clinton 683 votes when she only got 619 ballots cast for her. There are similar problems with other candidates. That's not a problem? I used to have respect for the citizens of New Hampshire. Missing a count by over sixty votes for one candidate in one district is pathetic. So if that's not a problem, I can imagine all the other stuff that you guys overlook. I understand that if you use the wrong pen at a polling place you might lose hundreds of votes, like in Stratham. But how does a machine count votes that weren't cast? Don't you feel a little ashamed being responsible for reporting news and not even understanding what's in front of you?"

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/17/2008 @ 8:07 pm PT...





JOSH, are you a Clinton supporter? I find it curious that you apparently don't want all the votes counted. Is it only about who won or lost for you? How did 151 votes that were never cast get counted?

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... semperfi said on 1/17/2008 @ 8:16 pm PT...





Daisy: It looks like Richardson lost all his votes in Bedford. Is this typo? Exactly. Folks should calm down and wait for the final results before trying to draw conclusions.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Jane said on 1/17/2008 @ 8:43 pm PT...





Brad please contact me immediately!

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Eh seen it b4 said on 1/17/2008 @ 8:58 pm PT...





Eh this is called pulling an Ohio, you get the same nubers in the end, but you give some counties less or more votes. In OH they took votes away from urban counties an sub-burbs, and gave votes to the rurual counties.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/17/2008 @ 8:59 pm PT...





"Brad please contact me immediately!"

Hmmmmmm. That sounds like someone might have some important info. Do tell.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/17/2008 @ 9:16 pm PT...





Is Jane the same Jane that posted this on a Ron Paul board:

"If you are ANYWHERE near NH and can get to 71 Fruit St. with a video camera your help is needed NOW! I am posting this at 10:24 PM on Thursday night January 17. I have notified every list and forum I know of, and have even contacted state reps in NH."

Will be interesting to find out what that is all about.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Robert S. said on 1/17/2008 @ 9:22 pm PT...





What I find most amazing about this is that they need a machine to count 1200 pieces of paper to begin with. Are we that incompetant as human beings?

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Jeremy Trudell said on 1/17/2008 @ 9:38 pm PT...





Did they have separate polling places for republicans and democrats? I wonder if those lost votes came from RON PAUL!

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/17/2008 @ 9:49 pm PT...





I just had a thought, and I'm going to throw it out here to see what anybody else thinks. In another thread someone mentioned a Karl Rove/Dick Morris connection to this election fraud. When I read that, what popped into my mind is that ... is there a possibility that our elections are being rigged for betting purposes? I think the reason this popped into my head is because Dick Morris has a proven track record of operating without integrity, and Karl Rove has a similar track record, except with an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence only. They're both very intelligent, on a level that people who get into high stakes gambling are, and I once heard of Rove mentioning somewhere where it got picked up as a low-key news item that he finds it interesting that he's found a way to convince the far-right Christian demographic that the Republican Party is the party of the Jesus crowd, even though he doesn't buy into the Christian thing at all. I may be completely off-the-wall here, but there's so much else about this EI issue that's off-the-wall that it might fit in.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... FreedomOfInformationAct said on 1/17/2008 @ 9:55 pm PT...





Congress Takes Swift Action on Preventing Electron Fraud NH Recount: Diebold tally irregularities emerging

https://bradblog.com/?p=5573 Emergency bill seeks paper ballots amid troubling election reports

http://rawstory.com/news...ed_for_another_0117.html CONYERS INTRODUCES BILL TO BAN VOTER CAGING

http://rawstory.com/news...to_criminalize_0117.html

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... lll said on 1/17/2008 @ 9:55 pm PT...





interesting to note in these scant numbers that both clinton and obama's 'loss' from the handcount was just under 1%, where edwards' was 1.5%. would have to do more math than my brain cells can manage at this late hour to determine if this is a significant discrepancy or not, but i'm suspecting it is. and so, not at all sure what to make of THAT. more numbers will be important to see if this pattern holds up. will keep watching.....

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... drummer55 said on 1/17/2008 @ 10:04 pm PT...





Check my math.... they each lose and gain votes in different places but so far Clinton, Edwards and Obama are all at -12 votes. Very weird and if richardson loses 2 more votes when bedford is finally posted he'll be at -12 as well. http://www.democraticund...7750&mesg_id=2707750

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Shawn said on 1/17/2008 @ 10:16 pm PT...





Now I'm no expert, but it still strikes me as patently wrong that somehow numbers are gained and lost across the board yet everything stays consistant... is that supposed to be reassuring?

it's fine that there was so many errors cause the results came out the same? I dunno, to me it makes it seem all the more fixed.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... FreedomOfInformationAct said on 1/17/2008 @ 10:25 pm PT...





so are those missing votes going to Kucinich?

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Brian W said on 1/17/2008 @ 10:32 pm PT...





Well, I plugged all of the numbers into excel, and I came up with this: Leading Candidates % Jan 8th % Recount

Clinton 42.6% 42.8%

Obama 34.3% 34.4%

Edwards 15.6% 15.6%

Kucinich 1.0% 0.9% total votes Jan 8th 42183

total votes Recount 42026

Difference -157

% Difference -0.003721878 I read somewhere that .002% is government standard, so this is pretty darn close. I am one of the people that is highly suspicious of how the primary turned out considering all of the polling that took place and the results, but that seems like it is pretty close considering. Until I started to dig a bit deeper into the numbers. Per this source:

http://electionarchive.o.../ucvData/NH/Primary2008/ I found that all of Hillsborough wards were Diebold Optical Scanned... Jan 8th Recount Change % Change

Amherst 2,930 2,923 -7 -0.0024

Bedford 4,059 3,874 -185 -0.0456

Brookline 936 962 26 0.0278

Hollis 1,923 1,927 4 0.0021

Litchfield 1,561 1,579 18 0.0115

Manchester 1 2,461 2,477 16 0.0065

Manchester 2 2,068 2,073 5 0.0024

Manchester 3 1,277 1,285 8 0.0063

Manchester 4 1,567 1,578 11 0.0070

Manchester 5 1,466 1,312 -154 -0.1050

Manchester 6 2,012 1,989 -23 -0.0114

Manchester 7 1,601 1,609 8 0.0050

Manchester 8 2,056 2,067 11 0.0054

Manchester 9 1,883 1,884 1 0.0005

Manchester 10 1,831 1,848 17 0.0093

Manchester 11 1,333 1,346 13 0.0098

Manchester 12 1,587 1,624 37 0.0233

Merrimack 5,457 5,488 31 0.0057

Milford 2,844 2,847 3 0.0011

Nashua 4 1,331 1,334 3 0.0023

42,183 42,026 -157 Two that stick out like sore thumbs are Bedford and Manchester 5. They are two of only 4 wards that lost votes (a total 339 votes for those two wards alone)...the other 14 gained votes. 6 of the 18 wards met the .002% federal standard and 8 of them had less than 10 votes change. Every single ward had an error. In the end, it is almost statistically insignificant when you look at the overall percentages. But, that being said, all of this was done by a machine (granted, humans feed the machines). And, in the end, it took two candidates willing to pony up the cash to ensure the EVERY persons vote was counted...some more than once apparently. Other interesting bits: 1. Every single candidate that received at least one vote in the primary was mis-counted and either gained or lost at least 1 vote.

2. Every candidate that had more than 1000 votes lost votes in the recount.

3. Every candidate with less than 1000 votes picked up votes in the recount, with the exception of....wait for it...Kucinich, Hunter, and Dodd.

4. That means that the top 5 candidates lost votes in the recount (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich).

5. The single largest glaring error was Richardson loosing 9.9% of his votes, virtually all of them (184) in one single ward, Bedford. WTF? How does that happen? So, I'll leave it up to you to decided if this is enough to raise your shackles over. I'll wait until I see the whole state before getting too upset...

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Brian W said on 1/17/2008 @ 10:44 pm PT...





Opps, I made on ommission, and wanted to make one clarification:

Leading Candidates Jan 8th Recount

Clinton 42.6% 42.8%

Obama 34.3% 34.4%

Edwards 15.6% 15.6%

Richardson 4.5% 4.1%

Kucinich 1.0% 0.9%

I forgot Richardson...Sorry Gov. Also, I forgot to add that even thought there was a 157 net loss in votes, that there were 581 mis-cast votes...which works out to .0138%, well above the .002% (if that is indeed the federal standard). Either way, that is a lot of people that either don't exist, or didn't have their vote count.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Grizzly Bear Dancer said on 1/17/2008 @ 10:57 pm PT...





Keep trusting recount numbers put up by convicted felons with ties to the criminal 1%ers in office who cheated to win in 2000 and 2004. Their inaccurate riggable electronic computer totals were counted and then stored in secrecy by diebold. Keep wearing a fcking question mark on yer forhead Americans. Keep allowing this to be the status quo for an American election let alone the presidential and enjoy the treason. Pre-empted wars, questionable policies favoring the corporate 1% and your loss of rights as American citizens was to fcking easy to get away with. Brought to you by the someone who knows that "white" alqueda terrorists who got away with taking out Federal World Trade Tower building #7 ON 9/11 IN 7 SECONDS without the help of any airplanes or arabs 10 1/2 hours after the other 2 Federal World Trade Towers fell are still running this country. To be clear, the bush/cheney terrorists responsible are still is office. I command thee to impeach, and remove President Bush and Vice President Cheney from office stripping them of all their Executive powers immediately. They can take their Alberto Gonzalez defensive strategy to a world court hearing their case to try and explain away their despicable 7 yr anti-environmental agenda to destroy our land and planet in the name of greed, obvious treasonous activies against the American people, and the numberous high crimes and misdemeanors offenses they will prosecuted for. Findings will be: Consecutive life sentences for the bush/cheney administration and their accomplices who retired early to spend more time with their families. Abolish electronic computer voting machines and an election process that allows votes to be counted in secrecy without transparency.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Carl M said on 1/17/2008 @ 11:08 pm PT...





Personally, I think the fact that McCain won SO big is enough proof of vote fraud. 70% of Americans are sick of the Iraq war and overwhelmingly vote for a guy who doesn't mind us being in Iraq for another 100 years?! (Did I say vote? I meant literally RESURRECTED) "Make it 100 [years]" If it isn't vote fraud, then the unfortunate reality is, we as Americans are TOO STUPID to govern ourselves anyway.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Brian W said on 1/17/2008 @ 11:26 pm PT...





Alright, last one. I made a stupid mathmatical error (it Excel's fault!! Darn that Bill Gates!). I forgot to convert the percentages of mis-cast votes per precinct to actual percentages. The correct list: Hillsborough Jan 8 Recount Change % Change

Amherst 2,930 2,923 -7 -0.24%

Bedford 4,059 3,874 -185 -4.56%

Brookline 936 962 26 2.78%

Hollis 1,923 1,927 4 0.21%

Litchfield 1,561 1,579 18 1.15%

Manchester 1 2,461 2,477 16 0.65%

Manchester 2 2,068 2,073 5 0.24%

Manchester 3 1,277 1,285 8 0.63%

Manchester 4 1,567 1,578 11 0.70%

Manchester 5 1,466 1,312 -154 -10.50%

Manchester 6 2,012 1,989 -23 -1.14%

Manchester 7 1,601 1,609 8 0.50%

Manchester 8 2,056 2,067 11 0.54%

Manchester 9 1,883 1,884 1 0.05%

Manchester 10 1,831 1,848 17 0.93%

Manchester 11 1,333 1,346 13 0.98%

Manchester 12 1,587 1,624 37 2.33%

Merrimack 5,457 5,488 31 0.57%

Milford 2,844 2,847 3 0.11%

Nashua 4 1,331 1,334 3 0.23%

42,183 42,026 -157 Lastly, I took some extra time and (and code) and figured out that actually, 698 votes have been miscast (the 581 just summed up the differences in each district rather than counting each vote change between the primary and the recount for each candidate and in each ward). My bad. Better now. Incidentally, 698 mis-cast votes is 1.66%, which would have finished in 5th place, behind Richardson and ahead of Kucinich in Hillsborough County. Sorry about the errors...

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Marie said on 1/18/2008 @ 12:04 am PT...





Here's the list of NH Municipalities which use the ACCUVOTE Voting Machine, for those of you above who commented you didn't know this ... http://www.sos.nh.gov/voting%20machines2006.htm

...Marie

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... SeattleDem said on 1/18/2008 @ 1:04 am PT...





From B.B.V. Red Flags on the New Hampshire Primary 1-17-08: Ballot boxes found slit; NH stops putting ballots in vault;

No worries, say New Hampshire officials when cuts up to eight inches long are spotted in newly delivered ballot boxes. "The only seal that counts is the one on top."

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:03 am PT...





Before you guy all run around with your spreadsheet without FIRST fixing the data, you'll note Bedford needs to be fixed. SOS - 183 Recount - 184 BRAD,

Please post the link to the Union Leader election night results which apparently got Manchester Ward 5 more correct. Ward 5

Clinton - 615 (619)

Obama - 362 (365)

Edwards - 215 (217) In this case, I'm willing to be there was a problem with whoever entered the Ward 5 sheet into the database at SOS? Or somewhere. It looks like this was correct on election night as those numbers look about what you would expect with the hand count finding one or two extra.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:08 am PT...





I sent WMUR-TV a message..

Hopefully the local folks in WMUR-TV ville USA agree with me.

Your headline should be changed

from: "Recount Finds No Voting Problems So Far." to:

WMUR-TV Recount Finds No Voting Problems with a more than 50 point change!? Why lie to the people? No voting problems? Are you freaking kidding me no voting problems? What was the source for that information, admit it really you just make it up out of thin air, that's not journalism, that's not news that's pure lies and propaganda. The simple fact that there is even ONE vote off is serious problem. Everyone in corporate media is touting these crappy electronic voting machines as some kind of perfect thing. They have failed over and over time again and again. This isn't some kind of joke. This is National Security. People can die because of these decisions. You better get schooled on what journalism is. You might try here: New Hampshire

Bedford Community Television

Concord Community Television

Conway Valley Vision Community Television

Durham Community Access Television DCAT-22

Manchester Community Access Media - public access

Merrimack Community Television Channels MGTV-23 and METV-24 and MPTV-25

Salem Community Television Public and Government Access Channel

The New Hampshire Coalition for Community Media If all you care about profits, and deceiving your local public, you don't serve the public interest and don't deserve a license to broadcast. Now even the most mentally disabled among us could easily point to: http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm And see for some of the results are off by more that fifty! 50 points man!? WMUR-TV Recount Finds No Voting Problems with a more than 50 point change!? Wow man, your headline just got worse. I just pointed some data to you, you know where the frigging page is not, so your journalists can get on the ball and correct your lying propaganda webpage: http://www.wmur.com/news/15078710/detail.html Stop pretending to be the news media.

http://www.wmur.com/news/ And you also talk about rumors from voting groups. I say your the one making up the rumors. After all you should just say who your sources are. And if your talking about arresting Garner maybe you should send one of your journalists into your own public law library with a couple big gulps and some coffee to read your own laws on why that might have been so. Could it be he was breaking his own laws? (that really wasn't meant as a question) Garner should not be trusted. Voting is not based on trust. I don't care if you have Jesus of Nazareth working as your Secretary of State, even he should not be trusted. That's why theres something called public oversight, but WMUR has lost that concept due to it's desire for corporate profits, it no longer serves the public interest. And really if that's the way you want it to stay, then there really is no reason for WMUR to even have a frequency allocated to it by the FCC, since they are public airwaves, and your promising to be in the public interest, yet time and time again you are not serving the public interest. If you really were serving the public interest you would be

telling everyone to 1. Outlaw electronic vote tabulation devices.

2. Maintain an unbroken chain of custody.

3. Create harsh penalties for tampering.

4. Roll back measures, propositions, and elected officials who are sworn in if the vote is later shown that they are not the winner.

5. Deactivate the electoral collage.

6. Only use electronics to print paper ballots for the disabled.

7. If someone breaks their oath of office after being elected - drop, reject or nullify it.

8. Allow equal time on all channels for all candidates.

9. Remove corporate financing of elections. But you do not serve the public interest. You do not deserve a license for your station. I am going to let people know (right now) to come into your station and have at your Public File because you do not serve their interest. Sure you might have an email contact, and you might be able to re-edit your webpage, but you can't change what's in your public file when you go for a license renewal. Got ya there. Have a nice day now.

(For others that haven't sent them a message, I can say without a doubt it feels good to really let them have a piece of your mind. It's too bad I don't actually live there, I would visit their public books every day.)

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Nate said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:23 am PT...





Clinton cheats to win. How pathetic. Good thing a Caucus is harder to fraud. Looks like the voting machines inflated Edwards and Obama by about 30 votes while inflating Clinton by 60. Exactly like what happened to Kerry in Ohio. And exactly what we expected.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Zeke O'Brien said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:34 am PT...





Thanks for the excellent reporting. I just e-mailed and called WMUR. I believe that their editor must have gone to Karl Rove's "The Math" class to relay such outrageous statements about being off a vote or two.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... blues said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:38 am PT...





It's so easy! You summon a randomly picked jury from among the voters who go to each polling station. The participants are forced to serve just like court juries. They are chosen from a large, pre-qualified pool three days before the election. They count the vote and run everything, with no interference from "Secretary of State" characters. They are legally required to stay home from work the next day, but are well compensated by the election system. Give the money and the time off to the people instead of the hackers! There are no machines, the juries just hand count the ballots on the night of the election. Then they publish and announce the results (at each individual polling station) prior to handing them up to tabulation pools. They are all required to take home a complete record of their local results. There would some few errors, but not systematic errors. Even if some juries were biased, other juries would be biased in other directions, so any biases would canceled. Recounts are useless because the chain of custody of the secret ballots is such a weak link. The results taken home by all the jurors would certainly be expected to agree, anyway. See, then we wouldn't have the worries, would we? Does anyone here want to keep the super-complicated electronic lightning rods for election fraud? Really? Why?

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... David said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:43 am PT...





Shawn wrote: it still strikes me as patently wrong that somehow numbers are gained and lost across the board yet everything stays consistant... On the contrary, this should be very reassuring, it is a perfect description of random statistical error, rather than deliberate cheating.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... David said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:49 am PT...





The Manchester Union Leader wrote this today: The widest variations so far were in Manchester's Ward 5. Vote counters there mistakenly transposed write-in votes for vice president as votes for presidential candidate. As a result, all major candidates lost votes. Kucinich lost three in the ward and has a total of 20 votes there. Hillary Clinton lost 64 with a new total of 619; John Edwards lost 38 and has 217 votes; Barack Obama lost 39 and has 365, and Bill Richardson lost seven, leaving him 39. I don't exactly get it, but it sounds interesting.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:14 am PT...





Brad: Here is a message I sent to WMUR:

"I have been following the New Hampshire recount story very closely. I noticed that the SOS Gardner told you that the hand count so far has not found any voting problems. There is, however, information that conflicts with his statement. Or, I suppose it would be a matter of what degree of accuracy we are to accept when casting and counting votes. If you look at Manchester, I believe in ward 5, you will see that almost all the candidates gain votes with the hand count. More important, we should really be concerned about not only the chain of custody of the paper ballots, as the count began some 8 or 9 days after the machine count - but also the question of securing the memory cards from the machines for close inspection by experts. There are reports that LHS employees had access to some of the machines, and thus the cards, DURING the lection. Why is this allowed? And of course, one point that has often been overlooked in the press coverage of this recount is the idea that we outsource our elections to private companies. Thank you for your time."

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... pete s said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:28 am PT...





we are able to vote for vice president here in new hampshire. the poll checkers for ward 5 in manch added the vice presidential votes to the totals of the candidates. when the recount occurred, the totals changed because those vice presidential votes were not presidential votes. so, they had to come off. it was human error. you guys are totally way off base. next time you want to write about this stuff, why don't you do it in our state instead of the safety of your computers from wherever you are. you have no clue what is going on here and you are leveling baseless charges against the good people of our state who know what is going on.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Excel said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:30 am PT...





Examining the results fetched at 2008-01-18 3:06 GMT+2:

They've now gone through what they thought should be 42,183 ballots cast but they've found only 42,026 ballots. At least 448 (to 507) ballots were miscounted during the first count, that's 1,07 %.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:36 am PT...





Over at Booman Tribune Lisa Pease commented that she heard a source say that a box was still missing. I presume she means that a box of ballots is missing. If that's so, it could explain all the extra votes. But it wouldn't explain why the Secretary of State would announce the recount before all the ballots were counted. Has anyone else heard this rumor?

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:48 am PT...





Because Pete S, when you get told that 2+2=3 too many times, you get not only curious, but a little bit uneasy. Fine, if the recount provides us with the answers to our questions (which already it looks like it won't), then we have to look at these people doing the polls and exit polls. The first step is to check out the vote count. Kucinich is right. And it has nothing to do with the people of NH - but more with a lack of trust in the election system in the entire nation. Also, a lack of faith in leaders that have lied to us much too often.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:52 am PT...





Pete S, are you saying that the Diebold miscounted Vice President votes as President votes, or are you saying the Secretary of State miscounted Vice President votes as President votes, or are you saying that the recount counted the VP votes as President votes? According to what source?

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:29 am PT...





HUGE MISLEADING TITLE FOUND ON BRADBLOG There. How's that. The Union Leader has an article about it. Look, the AP numbers for Ward 5 were insanely different from the SOS numbers. That set off red flags, but I assumed it was one extra machine added in. In fact, the AP numbers from election night are correct (available at Union Leader for Manchester by precinct). The SOS office or Manchester town clerk merged the VP and Pres votes somehow. NOT a big Diebold problem. See my post upthread.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:35 am PT...





This is my favorite quote of the whole thing so far: "The chain of custody during transport is two guys named Butch and Hoppy. That's it."

We trust two guys named Butch and Hoppy with the ballot chain of custody for election of the most powerful leader in the world. (although, not as powerful as in the past, maybe.)

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:51 am PT...





Brad: I also think you should address the new information about ward 5. Though, it still shouldn't have been counted wrong in the first place. VP and P? They don't know the difference? Also, there seems to have been other tricks along the Greg Palast view of bending elections. This is from the MSM people! Washington Post: "Lasky was also involved in the attempt by Clinton officials to remove Obama volunteers who had been sent to many polling places on primary day to check off the names of voters as they arrived so that the campaign's get out the vote workers would know which of their supporters had and hadn't voted. Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls." There. Right from the MSM.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:54 am PT...





Deja vu all over again.I dug up an old article I had saved in 06. It is an interview Dori Smith-talknationradio- has with Ken Hajjar regarding AccuVote Optical Scan used in Connecticut in the 06 election.

{snip}

She asks him "What would LHS be on hand to do if the machine were to fail? You know tell me the protocol. Ken Hajjar: Well in that case, first of all in this case that didn’t happen. None of the machines failed. If a machine were to fail either on election day or in any other circumstance it would be merely a matter of removing the memory card, there’s a little card that keeps track of the votes, bring a new machine over, put the memory card in the new machine, when you turn it on the new machine picks up right where the old machine stopped."

http://talknationradio.com/?p=58 (emphasis mine)

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:56 am PT...





... pete S: (#40) I would LOVE to come to your state and see for myself. Since I can't, I'm trying to keep myself INFORMED on this critical, underreported issue by reading the facts and opinions expressed RIGHT HERE from election watchdogs, statiticians, election analysts, political science prof's, journalists, candidates, lawyers, computer scientists; people with worlds of knowledge that I can't touch with a stick. People who've spent YEARS on the ground studying this issue first-hand. Curious, critical thinkers whose investigations into our election process has left them nothing short of broken hearted. You say, "you are leveling baseless charges against the good people of our state who know what is going on..." No, we're not. No one is accusing the good people of New Hampshire of ANYTHING. In fact, we are looking to you for information we are not getting anywhere else except BRADBLOG. And I'm curious--what DO you and the people of New Hampshire think is going on?...

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Mark D. said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:07 am PT...





Hello Brad, this is what I'm talking about. If there were a 2 count mandatory system for all votes in all elections nationwide, then this would have been done already and would have been discovered. Simply, Diabold would not be inserting 'vote grabbing' code that would subtly shift votes the wrong way, as appears to be the case, because they would know they'd get caught, every single time. Only in close elections are recounts asked for, and that bothers me the most. Having a scan, THEN fully transparent hand count would mean we'd have known this almost immediately. Within 24 hours of a vote. Sure, more places would have to hire a lot more people, but elections are worth it. A day in Iraq's cost would pay for it. This also means almost no more court cases, or denied recount requests. Vaotes counted twice by trusted hand and a machine that'd protect against 'ballot box stuffing' that hand count opponents would try to say is a risk, and again, since they'd get caught every time, if Diabold wants the business, they've have no choice but to make secure machines with no GOP code in them. That's the best way to beat the corporate elite turning tricks/votes for the GOP, as only profit has more say in their activity. Along with a push for publically financed elections, no lobbying allowed in D.C. if money/gifts are involved, and no Electoral College. A two count, one universal voting system is a movement we need to start. Who better to do that than you Brad? Spread the word.

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... Jan V said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:16 am PT...





I too took a look at the recount results so far and wanted to draw attention to Republican recount in Litchfield and the 12th Ward in Manchester. It looks like there were no votes casted at all for the Republican candidates in the original count, but apparently they found some ... or can we not trust the original counts??

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... RanDiv said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:30 am PT...





Re: Comment #32:



Please post the link to the Union Leader election night results which apparently got Manchester Ward 5 more correct. Ward 5

Clinton - 615 (619)

Obama - 362 (365)

Edwards - 215 (217) That is VERY interesting, but deepens the mystery of Ward 5 rather than fixing it. This shows that the results for Ward 5 originally posted on election night (as reported in the newspaper) correspond to the recount totals. However, the official reported vote tally that Brad reports at the top of this thread is not just something typed into the recount report, it is the OFFICIAL tally from the primary. Someone added a lot of votes between the time the polls closed and when the votes were reported to the NH SOS.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... RanDiv said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:42 am PT...





NONE [#45] says "the AP numbers from election night are correct (available at Union Leader for Manchester by precinct). The SOS office or Manchester town clerk merged the VP and Pres votes somehow. NOT a big Diebold problem." A discrepancy between the UNOFFICIAL AP numbers and the OFFICIAL NH Sec. of State numbers is a reason enough for a recount: this was a substantial error that is now explained, and will not happen in the general election thanks to this investigation. Who cares if it is human error, machine error, and/or fraud?! The point is to uncover problems and fix them. This is a vindication of the recount process, not somehow an argument against it. Duh.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:44 am PT...





COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:29 am PT... HUGE MISLEADING TITLE FOUND ON BRADBLOG

(Snipped for brevity) And where are the official results coming from might I ask? From the Union?

I don't think so. From the AP?

I don't think so.

Oh, here they are!

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



COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Jim said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:51 am PT...





I live in N.H. WMUR is the only network news station in N.H. They are Bush loyalists to the core. The female anchor women actually gush and act SO proud of their commander in chief when they report on him The whole thing just makes me want to barf. I emailed the station the day after the N.H. Primary to tell them about the voting discrepancies. When everything is said and done, they will report that the recount proved nothing...you can almost bet on it.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:59 am PT...





You should never forget that the "people of New Hampshire" that are involved in the electoral process have only one goal: GET IT OVER WITH FAST AND GET OUT ALIVE. They absolutely don't care about the integrity of the electoral process or anything else. They just want it OVER WITH. These are people who would say and do ANYTHING to avoid any serious discussion of how totally incompetent and corrupt their process is. If you want to cut them slack and pretend they are "doing the best they can," please remember that they certified and allowed a company to count our ballots who had FELONS working for them. They certified and accepted the counts of systems that are TEN TIMES above the federally accepted margins of error. They allowed the paper ballots of their fellow citizens and the electronic records of their counting to be handled like TRASH and handed to just about anybody, rather than following RULES AND REGULATIONS ALREADY IN PLACE. They played the game like THEY DIDN"T CARE THAT THERE WERE RULES, BUT just "get it done and move on, it's not that important to follow the rules." They DO NOT CARE. They have cashed the checks, and by election day, the state has made all the money they are going to make from being "the first in the nation." They want all the media and everybody else to move on for another 3 years and 9 months. So, to Paul, I would only say: "SCREW YOU!" This is my democracy, whether I am in New Hampshire or not, and your state has thrown it on the dump heap. Your state primary should be moved to LAST IN THE NATION on June 1st, and then your position in the Secretary of State's office would be worth about as much as dog catcher of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, and the only thing New Hampshire would be good for is skiing when you can't get into Vermont and can't afford Utah.

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:12 am PT...





...Yeah, the "Learn to Fart" state

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:21 am PT...





I'm not finding any specifications as to how ballots are to be transported, other than they are "forwarded" to the SOS for recounts. That is very problematic. There is specification for the condition of the containers when depositing in the town or city hall. "The clerk or his designee shall, without breaking the seals or 'otherwise changing the condition of the containers,'..." I fail to see why this "condition of containers" clause would not apply to ballot containers in transit. That some containers arrived with slits cut in them would seem in violation of this clause. The NH SOS seems to lack a lot of curiosity about what's happening to election evidence in NH. http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa659.htm 659:98 Delivery of Ballots to Town Clerk. The moderator, or his designee, and the selectmen, or their designee, after they have sealed and certified the state election ballots as provided in RSA 659:95 and 96 shall deliver the sealed containers to the town or city clerk, or to his designee, who shall in their presence enter in the appropriate place on each sealer the time of day and shall sign his name in the appropriate blank on the sealer. The clerk or his designee shall, without breaking the seals or otherwise changing the condition of the containers, deposit the containers in the town or city hall, where the ballots shall be kept for a period of 60 days. 659:99 Forwarding Ballots to the Secretary of State. If any person shall make a request for a recount as provided in RSA 660 the clerk having the custody of such ballots shall, at the request of the secretary of state, forward the ballots forthwith to the secretary of state

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... Donna said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:28 am PT...





Off topic I know... I loved the Iowa caucus. No machines, just people raising their hands for their choice. In front of cameras. Simple, easy, transparent, HONEST ! We get to see it again on Sat. in Nevada. Keep us updated on NH Brad, no one else is.

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... billw said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:30 am PT...





Here is a better look at the SoS results so far (photobucket jpg screenshot from the SoS website. * I moved the results around to put them on one line for the attached jpg and added the plus/minus in blue/red respectively. ) I can't see that it altered the outcome so far or that it favored any one candidate over any other by much, but there is something really really wrong. If you ask me, this isn't even close to good enough for any democracy.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:30 am PT...





In case the slits in boxes is new news here, found that on the OpEd news site. There would be no reason for any change in those boxes, no matter how slight.

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... Jane said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:43 am PT...





Yes this is Jane from DP. They still want as many people as possible to get to 71 Fruit St in Concord to help oversee this recount. Bring a video cam if you can. I am in NH but not near Concord. I spoke to Bev Harris last night and she seemed quite upset about what she was observing.

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:44 am PT...





Why are the box3n slit-able in the first place? Anybody heard of STEEL? Oh that's right only steal.

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... Jody Holder said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:46 am PT...





Some followup comments and additional observations after reading the comments above:

I am not making any accusations, especially not against either the poll workers of Ward 5 or of Bedford, nor any voters who trusted their election officials. I am simply pointing out that the numbers and explanations do not add up. 1. In Bedford and Ward 5 ALL other candidates' vote totals, other than the top five, remained exactly the same. If the VP choices had been mistakenly added why were they not added to those other candidates too.

2. The poll workers (or "vote counters" as one person stated) did not count the votes, nor have the ability to mistakenly add on the VP choices. The votes were recorded by Diebold scanners and downloaded to memory cards. The poll workers should have printed out a vote totals report from each optical scanner, signed the paper, and submitted that along with the memory card to election headquarters.

3. The election headquarters for Hillsborough County would have then downloaded the memory cards into their central server containing the Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) which would then tabulate and issue a vote totals report for the county. Those would be the numbers that the Union Leader newspaper would have reported that night. Those numbers are rather close to the recount for all five candidates:

Newspaper............Recount

Clinton 615............... 619

Obama 362................365

Edwards 215...............217

Richardson 38...............39

Kucinich 20................20 Notice that the recount added votes to all except to Kucinich. For an additional 10 votes over what was originally reported. While the top five candidates ALL lost votes from the SoS's reported totals. The Diebold GEMS program has an export feature for reporting the results from the county to the SoS's office. I am not sure if Hillsborough County used that feature or chose to call in the totals (which I doubt). That means the added-on votes probably occurred within GEMS (no poll worker error), or at the state level.

If it was a "glitch" in the GEMS tabulation system I would question why did the large "glitch" only occur for Bedford and Manchester Ward 5. If the programming problem affected only those two precincts, why did it not affect all the other candidates in those same precincts? I would assume that the reports that the Union Leader used were generated from the GEMS program, and were relatively accurate. That means the added votes must have occurred at the state level, or between the time the totals were reported to the local press and sent in to the state. If the additional votes were mistakenly added at the state level, why was the same error repeated five times, and not at all for the smaller candidate totals? The same question would be appropriate addressed to the local election headquarters. Why were these major errors confined to just two precincts out of fifty? Some may say that the error rate was small. But if extrapolated over an entire state, especialy a larger state, such errors can be critical. More importantly, the recount is showing that the optical scanners do make errors. That fact alone justifies at the minimum random audits to detect such errors. This was a pretty simple election. What if it had been a ballot with local races and initiatives which many times are determined by very slim margins. Even the Presidential race in New Mexico was determined by just a few hundred votes. Some have pointed out that after the entire county was recounted the vote totals had an average net gain of 12. That means that excluding Manchester Ward 5's negative 151 votes, the other precincts had to add a large number of previous counting errors. It was commented that people from other states should stay out of New Hampshire's elections. I would state that all of us are affected by what occurs in these early primary states. Candidates drop out of the race leaving other states' citizens fewer choices. Candidates are excluded from future debates based upon their showing in a particular primary election. What happens in New Hampshire affects us all. More importantly, examining what happened in New Hampshire shows the inherent problem with electronic recording, tabulating, and reporting of votes. It also demonstrates that any secret handling of our votes needs to be audited at each stage. We cannot and should not just trust the election officials, nor the electronic voting systems they trust. The poll books, memory cards, printed out vote totals from each optical scanner, audit and event logs and reports for the recounted counties should be forensically exmained to determine what went wrong. Until that is scientifically determined we cannot trust the current system. First election officials must admit there is a problem, determine the cause of the problem, before they correct the problem. Denials by election officials, or the media, of any problems only increases our mistrust in our elections.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... James said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:50 am PT...





So far, the real issue has not even been dealt with. Although Brad correctly has an issue with the Diebold machines, I always thought that a recount meant a "recount of all ballots". Suspiciously, so far only polls that used Diebold machines have been reported. How can you compare machine vote inaccuracy rates without some sort of standard inaccuracy rate in hand counting. Secondly, it seems that it would be a good idea to test all the machines used to determine if the errors were machine, machine-operator, card-operator, or a ballot error. You cannot fix something if you cannot identify where and why it fails.

Certainly it is already evident that the error rate across diebold precincts appears to be acceptable (except of course for Manchester 5). Finally, I don't know how they do it in New Hampshire, but in Canada the precinct captain pre-signs the back of every ballot (to keep track of the numbers), and the desk-jockeys have to fill out count sheets, which altogether monitors the numbers used and unused but available. This allows a precinct and the system to verify counts so that the miscount in Manchester 5 would be seen very quickly. Secondly, it would allow for the determination of any funkiness occuring after the count cards have left the polling place.

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:50 am PT...





Slits in boxes? Nah, that doesn't matter. "You can trust us. You can trust the people transporting the ballots. You can trust the felons who work for us. We're the SoS, and you are just pathetic VOTERS, or, worse yet, 'out-of-state medelers." That's what you get from "these people" whether Democrats, DINOs, or Rethuglicans. You get the "we know better than you and we'll follow the rules when WE want to, and NOT when we don't want to" kind of mentality. The people in Ohio should have been EXECUTED for their actions in the 2004 recount --- that would have put a little damper on the attitude of other election workers around the country. THEN, they might take the most important job in the world a little more seriously. When the revolution comes, after Rethuglicans who still have "W" stickers on their cars & SUVs, the election workers are the next group to go up against the wall. Then the bankers, HMO execs, et al.

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:53 am PT...





RE: WMUR-TV Direct your letters about WMUR to both the General Manager, Jeff Bartlett, and to the News Director. I couldn't find up to date information on who the news director currently is, what I've found is that Andrew Vrees took over that post in 2004. The WMUR site is not very forthcoming with management information/contacts. Be polite, be specific, and be professional- you'll get a lot more attention. TV news and news in general cannot dictate policy (Well, they shouldn't) or change the laws- they can investigate, editorialize, and for darn sure DO A BETTER JOB OF REPORTING. What happens nowdays is that alleged journalists ask a few questions of officials and report those answers. It never crosses their minds or they don't want to go there- that the "official" word is anything but "the" word. Take the time to look up NH election law: http://www.sos.nh.gov/statutes.htm ...and ask why the violations are not reported. Why is it that citizens have more knowledge than the reporters on the story? Evidence: the law.

Evidence: what did not happen in the elections and after math. Investigative story: LHS Associates and NH dependence on them. That dependence does not jive with the NH motto. WMUR-TV Broadcast Center

100 South Commercial Street

Manchester, NH 03101

1-800-257-5151

FAX: (603) 641-9005 Partners: ABC/CNN WMUR-TV General Manager Jeff Bartlett

http://blog.aflcio.org/2...es-back-wmur-tv-workers/ WMUR-TV Hires News Director; New Hampshire native Andrew Vrees was at a New Mexico station

Business Wire, May 12, 2004

http://findarticles.com/..._2004_May_12/ai_n6023634

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:56 am PT...





PHIL The point is that Ward 5 is not HUGE DIEBOLD DISPARITY. It appears to be human screwups, and good for them for fixing them. Anyone want to point to any of of the Diebold disparities? Are there any beyond 1% of scanned cicles yet? I'm all about recounts and honest, accurate, transparent elections, but we also have to pick our battles. This recount will decide the FATE OF ONE DELEGATE. Ever hear of the story of little boy who cried wolf, that is what we get to look forward to from the media. Look, I have been listening to "get over it" for years. You made my life a 100 times worse with a NH recount which will only vindicate Diebold vendors. If the chain of custody story makes it to the front pages of the media, then fine, it was worth it. If NH cleans up their elections for Nov, then good, but at what cost?

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:00 am PT...





#34 Nate, please read DES's post: #96 DES said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:59 pm PT...

PLEASE NOTE:

This is not about Candidate A winning or Candidate B losing. This is solely about the hackable, unsecure voting machines (optical scan in NH) that have been investigated and proven to be crap and yet are still deployed to count the majority of elections in this country. Whenever and wherever there is a discrepancy with electronic voting machines involved --- no matter how big or small the race, no matter if it's Repub or Dem --- Voting Integrity advocates look into it. It's what they do. Please do not assume or assign motives, intentions or conclusions to anyone here that are not EXPLICITLY stated. Brad makes crystal clear that he doesn't care who won or lost, just that the results are ACCURATE. Period. The site owner is not responsible for the opinions of commenters in this open forum. No endorsement of commenters' opinions is either intended or implied. In addition, please note that The Brad Blog does not allege that fraud (or "rigging") has actually occurred --- only that the results of any contest that incorporates electronic voting systems should be subject to exacting scrutiny and independent verification prior to certification.

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:00 am PT...





Charlie!

...still have "W" stickers on their cars & SUVs... Nobody has those anymore! Do they? No! Not, not, not... can't be....

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:22 am PT...





Agent 99, there are 15-20% of the American Public who have those "W"'s EMBOSSED into their cars and tatoo'ed on their butts. The "loyal base" of nutjobs who will probably vote for Huckabee or even Gulianni, heaven help us, or Jeb if it's an open convention and they can't figure out who to pick. I'm afraid it's so.

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:22 am PT...





COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:56 am PT... PHIL The point is that Ward 5 is not HUGE DIEBOLD DISPARITY. It appears to be human screwups, and good for them for fixing them. Anyone want to point to any of of the Diebold disparities? Are there any beyond 1% of scanned cicles yet? I'm all about recounts and honest, accurate, transparent elections, but we also have to pick our battles. This recount will decide the FATE OF ONE DELEGATE. Ever hear of the story of little boy who cried wolf, that is what we get to look forward to from the media. Look, I have been listening to "get over it" for years. You made my life a 100 times worse with a NH recount which will only vindicate Diebold vendors. If the chain of custody story makes it to the front pages of the media, then fine, it was worth it. If NH cleans up their elections for Nov, then good, but at what cost?

You are kidding me right? No?

I DIDN'T SAY A THING ABOUT WARD 5

Did they fix it? Fix it by SLICING UP THE BOXES? Give me a fucking break. Don't talk to me about life.

Brad has seen my face.

(when he visited Sacramento) You look at me in the face and tell me I don't care or give a shit.... Anyone that has seen my face knows. Anyone that KNOWS me PERSONALLY knows I care. I drove all my fucking friends crazy, I have driven my family crazy. IT IS KILLING ME! Take a picture of me say four years ago and compare it to now. You don't see the death this shit causes? This is absolutely killing me. How many hours did you sleep last night? 6 8? try 3 for me. I been getting 3 hours of sleep . every fuckin day. THREE. The day that it starts killing you, is the day that I will say great, let fix this problem. Let us JOIN FORCES AND STOP THIS FUCKING SHIT. You might just be right about picking your battles. Already other states are getting fucked. And yet all our resources and experts are stuck and bogged down in NH. We fucking all can look forward to 2008 with this kind of shit. This year will bring death to oath breakers or death to patriots. YOUR FUCKING CHOICE. I sound angry? Hell yeah I am angry. I ain't allowed to pick on you. So go ahead, pick on me some more.

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... billw said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:23 am PT...





. Agent 99 said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:00 am PT... Charlie! ...still have "W" stickers on their cars & SUVs... Nobody has those anymore! Do they? No! Not, not, not... can't be.... I take it you don't live in a red state. I've got at least 4 cars/trucks on my short block that I have to see everyday with Bush Cheney stickers. There's less than there used to be, but still you can't go anywhere without seeing at least one.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... Charlie said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:24 am PT...





I am not American, Australian actually, but have followed this with some interest here in South America. My three comments both concern this Vice President voting error. 1. How is it possible that there is not a reconciliation between the results and the actual number of people who voted, which would have flagged this and other possible errors or fraud days ago. It seems it should be a requirement of any election. 2. Contrary to what has been posted I am figuring this would indeed make a difference to results, as lower profile candidates would have received a higher percentage of the vote. Dennis K might, as was pointed out, not have changed his number of votes, but his percentage(and others, Paul, Guiliani etc)would I gather have been higher. After all percentages are what CNN etc make the biggest deal about, and although these candidates don´t win, under double figure results versus over make a big ongoing difference (for example Guiliani´s dive). 3. Now that the count has be found to be flawed (counting Vice Presidential votes as Presidential ones is a significant incompetent thing to have done, should not the organizers now pay the cost and refund monies. Thinking it was important, probably fascinating or even possibly Watergate-ish, I actually tried to donate to the recount but it was after the 2PM freeze, so was unable to do so, so this is not in any self interest.

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:27 am PT...





and nobody start fucking trolling me saying I said WARD 5 has had it's boxes sliced. I NEVER SAID THAT.

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:30 am PT...





BILLW, I used to have a 54' ford with a REAGAN / BUSH sticker

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:31 am PT...





PEOPLE.... democracynow.org

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... KestrelBrighteyes said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:33 am PT...





Ya know, if we were talking about money instead of ballots, I have to wonder how many people, upon learning there money missing from their account without explanation, would say, "Hey, it doesn't match my checkbook, but it's close enough"

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... billw said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:34 am PT...





It's not the bunch of undervotes in Manchester Ward 5 that worries me so much. Those could be a malfunctioning optical reader that has trouble reading the ballots. A serious problem indeed, but it doesn't seem nefarious or like it favored one candidate over another. What worries me is all of the overvotes! How do the machines count votes more than once? http://i196.photobucket....-Hillsborough-county.jpg That's really messed up. Something is definitely seriously wrong.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:36 am PT...





billw: Heh. No indeed. I lead a sheltered life in the boonies of northernmost California.... Simply amazing! */Fudd stickers in 2008. How demoralizing. I'm juicing myself up for all this craziness with Pink Floyd and strooong coffee right now.

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... billw said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:39 am PT...





Aw crap my link above was broken. sorry. {Fixed it. --99} It's a screenshot of the Manchester results laid out with the candidates Obama, Kucinich, Edwards and Clinton side by side with the over/under totals in blue/red.

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:39 am PT...





paper is much more reliable.

Not CHADS.

Paper ballots.

Humans can see it.

One way or another people can see paper.

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:41 am PT...





I don't know why Dennis chose to do the recount in New Hampshire. Maybe he figured "the earlier the better," maybe the laws were best there, maybe the costs were best, maybe the fact that it was only DieBold COUNTING mechanisms that we MIGHT be able to catch some of the fraud of, rather than DieBOld VOTING mechanism, where the fraud would be built-in and almost uncatchable (yea, right, like those "paper voter trails" can't be faked up right along with the count), who knows. Point is, N.H. is where the front lines ARE for the moment, until they move somewhere else. Personally, I blame Christime Gregouire in Washington for not having a MASSIVE investigation after her ultra-close race in which THOUSANDS of votes were stolen for her opponent in Squahomish County by electronic means (extensive documentation online). As a Dem, and the WINNER, and an ex-Prosecuter, she could have started a massive invesigation across the whole state to "assure the voters of Washington that their votes were correctly accounted for," and possibly have found and proven DieBold, Sequoia and/or ES&S corruption and fraud in 2004, when there would still have been time to make some corrections. But no, she took her close win and settled in and sold out Democracy. Meanwhile, the battle is in N.H. until it is not there any more. My thanks to those camera-wielding patriots who are fighting for our American Republic in the small, cold towns of the granite state. The edifice of corporate fascism is falling away just as the face of the Old Man in the Mountain --- fight on!

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:42 am PT...





Clive Thompson says there ain't enough time to switch to paper ballots. Bull.

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... bruce said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:46 am PT...





WMUR is the only network news station in N.H.; so sad.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Cindy said on 1/18/2008 @ 10:58 am PT...





Just amazing to me that the receptacle that hosts the flash cards aren't sealed with a tamper evident seal! But then - you are trusting a computer to function with zero error, over time, with unverified code,to select the POTUS - again, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. :-0

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/18/2008 @ 11:13 am PT...





http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa659.htm (What a shame that the SOS cannot locate the memory cards. Actually, he should be held responsible for lack of enforcement or potentially aiding and abetting because at this point, even if the cards are retrieved there is no way to insure they haven't been altered. If you have a law like this on the books, and NH does, then one ought to be holding those cards if needed as evidence) (The following amendment to RSA 659:42 will take effect January 1, 2007)

RSA 659:42 Tampering with Voting Machines. Whoever shall tamper with or injure or attempt to injure any voting machine or device for the computerized casting and counting of ballots to be used or being used in an election or whoever shall prevent or attempt to prevent the correct operation of such machine or device or [[[whoever shall tamper with software used in the casting or counting of ballots [or design such software so as to cause incorrect tabulation of the ballots]]]] or any unauthorized person who shall make or have in his or her possession a key to a voting machine to be used or being used in an election shall be guilty of a class B felony if a natural person or guilty of a felony if any other person. As for documentation at polling sites, NH law seems to provide for such: 659:56

659:57

659:62

659:59

659:71

659:77 I am not saying the software was tampered with or designed to cause incorrect tabulation- I'm saying that because of the horrendous break down in the chain of custody, there would be no way to know for sure.

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 11:24 am PT...





One thing we might have to consider, and I know this will be unpopular, is the role of the press, polls, and exit polls in the history of our elections. I have the book "VoteScam." The authors make a good case that when VNS did all the exit polling for all the networks - it seemed like some sketchy business was going on. They are also however, as far as I know, the first to warn against electronic voting. It looks like Bush #1 might have pulled an electronic votescam in NH in '88.(disclaimer: these opinion do not represent the opinions of bradblog.com.) They also bring up interesting observations about a power stuggle between the media (Katherine Grahmn of WaPo) and the Nixon people. Sending more money to Kucinich today with a note insisting he keep at this.

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 12:12 pm PT...





By the way, there is a post at Huffington post saying NH is doing this for attention. Can you believe that? She didn't even understand that Dennis is paying for this. (And Howard.) It was the dumbist thing I've seen about it yet. Brad, you should address that one. It was by a Meg Faveu.

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... molly said on 1/18/2008 @ 12:26 pm PT...





Proof we need a national primary day and N.H. gvt. is guilty of fraud. Since the judicial system is making tiny steps to be fair after some house cleaning. Maybe some higher ups will be going to jail. They had proof enough going in that the computers were hackable. Lost the memory cards in a few days . Give me a break. There are some criminals in N.H. that need prosecuting. Here is a tip to all the N.H. honchos looking at this blog. What if Keith Olberman gets real mad and has you on his show. You know a lot of people come here as well as BBV.

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... molly said on 1/18/2008 @ 12:29 pm PT...





This would be a good time for John Edwards to pull ahead. He has already experienced similiar criminal behavior in Ohio. That would do it for me. Would go to the caucus and have some facts supporting him ready.

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/18/2008 @ 12:36 pm PT...





"...doing this for attention?!!" Man, are they ever grasping for straws on this one. "...cannot locate the memory cards?!!" What a crock. Are there any adults who post at Kos? Is there anyone in the NH SoS office who is over the age of ten? Can the NH SoS actually get away with a "the dog ate my homework" routine? So that's it? You cheat. You're uncovered. Then you lose the evidence. The election still counts. And Kos fans think it's all for attention. I think it may be time for a tsunami to wash across America.

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... Charles Ponzi said on 1/18/2008 @ 1:18 pm PT...





Lost the memory cards? Not quite. NH towns use these machines for town meeting in March. My town in S. NH had the disks sitting in an envelope waiting to be mailed back to LHS for reprogramming. They reuse the cards and just reformat them for the new town ballot. I told the town clerk to wait on sending them. How many clerks already shipped them back? "Cards? We don't need no stinkin' cards."

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/18/2008 @ 1:23 pm PT...





Linda It was on HuffPo and it was just a lame attempt at humor. Not cluelessness, per se, just not funny.

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... Donna said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:15 pm PT...





Agent 99, Huff Post also ran a "Hang up on pollsters" story. No ones mentioned the polling results. They had a great win for Obama, RAW DATA exit polls confirmed them. (Then they make exit polls fit the outcome.) NH JUST KILLED ALL CREDIBILITY OF POLL RESULTS.

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... Guy Honda said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:16 pm PT...





You know counting is one of the things computers are best at. If they can't do that right they have no business making voting machines. They've already proven that they are too inept to do things properly.

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... karen said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:21 pm PT...





so the story in manchester 5 is that poll workers "mistook" votes for vp candidites bryk and stebbins for votes for obama,clinton and edwards? and entered them manually after they had reported dif numbers to the ap?

is bev double checking the numbers the sos is posting after recount? again.pls,someone thats on ground in nh post actually number of voters per precinct(since the sos has failed to do this)

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... GWN (ITMF's A) said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:22 pm PT...





Here in Canada we count our "paper ballots" twice.

The first count is called the "preliminary results". When all the ballots are counted for one polling station, the results are submitted electronically (I thought it was by phone so will have to find out what they mean by "electronically submitted") to Elections Canada. A week or so is spent verifying the results In each riding, the totals for every polling stations are checked and added up once more, before being submitted to Elections Canada; these are known as the "verified results." In our 2006 Federal Election, approximately 15 million voted) and we had the results within four hours. I do realise we don't have all the choices that you have to make so it's difficult to guess how long it would take to count in the US .

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... Rogue Anchors said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:27 pm PT...





It's amazing that people are quite comfortable talking about the NH re-count without giving Dk his due. Where were Obama,Clinton and Edwards on this matter - especially since this re-count will primarily help one of them. Did they spend a dime on this. NO. But the guy with the least amount of money, and the least to gain from this once again stood up for the US while the "Top Tier" canidates were awol.

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... GWN (ITMF'sA) said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:34 pm PT...





The only "corruption" that I am aware of in 06, was when a guy took one of the ballot boxes and ran over it with his truck. The ballots were ok though

COMMENT #101 [Permalink]

... Karen Young said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:40 pm PT...





Having counted ballots here in Illinois going way back to the 70's....every time we recounted we got different totals. Hand counting is not a be all, end all.

COMMENT #102 [Permalink]

... GWN (ITMF'sA) said on 1/18/2008 @ 2:49 pm PT...





#101, Well we keep counting and if it can't be verified, it goes to judicial recount. The judge makes the recount from the statements contained in the ballot boxes, or recounts some or all of the ballots returned by the deputy returning officers. If the candidates still have the same number of votes after the recount, a by-election will be held for that electoral district.

At least with paper ballots you can SEE the mistake.

COMMENT #103 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:14 pm PT...





donna #95 Yuh, I know, and about gave birth to a whole herd of cows when I saw that STUPID anti-poll thing there. Linked it here somewhere under "We are so fucked," or something to that effect. Blogged it on neufneuf similarly. My coffee has been spiked with LSD. That has just GOT to be it.... Sentient beings simply cannot have gone this kaleidoscopically weird this fast... or EVER... not of their own accord anyway.... I have to reinforce my foil space suit against the STUPID rays next and secure my coffee somehow. Aiyyyyeeeeee...

COMMENT #104 [Permalink]

... Cindy said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:26 pm PT...





You know counting is one of the things computers are best at. If they can't do that right they have no business making voting machines. They've already proven that they are too inept to do things properly. True IF - they have been coded properly - I can make a computer count in total gibberish- all I need to do is write a "count in gibberish" instruction in the code, and the machine will happily comply.

COMMENT #105 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:40 pm PT...





Did anyone throw this up yet, it was a post from Bev at her place...strange Yesterday when we did so (followed Butch and Hoppy), they were speeding at one point and we were fairly challenged to keep up with them. We did, thanks to the skillful driving of Susan Pynchon. There was a dark green SUV waiting for them in a rural location. They stopped, one of the transport team jumped out, went to the driver of the green SUV, said something, then the transport team headed one direction and the green SUV the other. Clearly, he had been waiting there to hook up with the transport team. There may be a perfectly logical explanation for this, but I think it is important to witness and/or video where the transport van goes and who they meet up with.

COMMENT #106 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:47 pm PT...





Rogue Anchors #99, my guess is that the other candidates are trying to distance themselves from this, because were they to become involved in this discussion, they would undoubtedly be portrayed by groups like the swiftboaters as sore losers who simply cannot accept reality therefore they're poor choices for president. I can't really blame them. Until more citizens catch on to this spinning of the truth, we cannot expect candidates to step up to the plate on an issue like this. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to catch on to the spin vs. truth thing until we've raised a generation of Americans who weren't glued to the boob tube as children. Thank-you, Rep. Kucinich!!!

COMMENT #107 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:48 pm PT...





Nice "Courier New" font ya got going here! Why are there so many mismatches? I think that's off the charts! How many mismatches there are! And watch out for "fun with numbers", like if every individual candidate's vote is off, but the entire net for ALL candidates is the same, is the same, they'll say, "No Problems with the count" on WMUR. That's like when Rush Limbaugh says the rich pay more taxes...without pointing out that they have all the money! And that's why! You can show the SAME numbers from YOUR angle to make something look better than reality.

COMMENT #108 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:50 pm PT...





IE: If there are 50% mismatches ON THE CANDIDATE LEVEL, WMUR might focus on a HIGHER level...get it?

COMMENT #109 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:52 pm PT...





Why are there ANY mismatches??? Let alone a striking amount of mismatches???

COMMENT #110 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/18/2008 @ 3:57 pm PT...





Comment 25 used courier, which lines up numbers in columns better, then it kept going on...the "courier font makes letters & numbers the same width. That'sll be $25 for that lesson...I take PayPal, not the one in New Hampshire...

COMMENT #111 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/18/2008 @ 4:02 pm PT...





Maryland is sooo fucked: http://www.wired.com/pol...s/news/2008/01/john_kane These election/voting fraudsters are like ants at a picnic. Just when you get them out of the chicken basket, there's more in the deviled egs.

COMMENT #112 [Permalink]

... Sporty said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:27 pm PT...





Maybe the percent is not just a single candidate. It might be the percentage of the total democratic candidates combined. Maybe the objective was to check the thief of the totals from all the democrats, which would be deleted or switched to the republican candidate in the General election. Democrats - 1% add to republicans candidate would be a 2% or more difference in the general election

COMMENT #113 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/18/2008 @ 5:43 pm PT...





Jane COMMENT #62 [Permalink] "...They still want as many people as possible to get to 71 Fruit St in Concord to help oversee this recount. Bring a video cam if you can." Hi, Jane!I'm an election integrity videographer in SARASOTA, worked with Mrs. Pynchon filming our recount, 2006. I'm alarmed to read that you are still shorthanded! Does this mean that you're not getting most of this on TAPE?... I've contacted BEV already/ Nancy Tobi/ EDA, and volunteered my time/tape and an unparalleled passion to film this event, if only someone can pay travel expenses. I assumed it was too costly for the groups, underfunded as they are, to contribute.

That being said, I am still (sort of) available,

but I'm wondering if you haven't reached out to the local NEW HAMPSHIRE RON PAUL MEETUP groups.

They are an unwavering, mighty army of videocameras. I know that sounds strange, but there's

more of a RON PAUL/ DENNIS KUCINICH cross-over than you might think. In fact, I'm fighting for them BOTH, tooth and nail. I feel certain NH

REPUBLICAN RECOUNT will have more than enough volunteers and observers to go around. I hope that helps... I'd sleep MUCH better knowing you have what you need to make sure this is documented for the public record. Best/ keep up the great work!

Jeannie Dean

www.videothevote.org

COMMENT #114 [Permalink]

... John Y said on 1/18/2008 @ 6:32 pm PT...





Earlier in a post, I misspelled "dumbest." And that is dumb of me. Hope everything will still be "secure" over the weekend. And Monday is Martin Luther King Holiday, too.

COMMENT #115 [Permalink]

... Bev Harris said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:03 pm PT...





The Manchester ballot boxes were brought in first. These were not the boxes that the slices were noticed with - in fact, many of the Manchester boxes were metal.

COMMENT #116 [Permalink]

... Bev Harris said on 1/18/2008 @ 7:05 pm PT...





Jeanie Dean --- working on the travel expenses for you for Dream Team II. E-mail me your phone number. My email is on the BBV site.

COMMENT #117 [Permalink]

... Jessica said on 1/18/2008 @ 8:03 pm PT...





Hand couting isn't necessarily meant to be the end all count. It is the first step. It's sad that there seems to be some lazy, or unorganized counters but thats why there are the machines. Yet of course there have been studies that have proven that it is easy to break into the voting machine's, and rig the voting. Those numbers are quite interesting. nice post.

COMMENT #118 [Permalink]

... NateTG said on 1/18/2008 @ 9:30 pm PT...





Anything that explains the disparity in Nashua Ward 5? (It's currently showing 7.5% changes for Clinton and Edwards, but very little for Obama.) Edwards also shows an outliner in the change in Antrim.

COMMENT #119 [Permalink]

... James said on 1/19/2008 @ 10:46 am PT...





Yo! BRAD!

The tagline certainly is wrong. A score is twenty (20). Scores would be then at least forty (40). And so far, 16 candidates have no change in counts in Manchester Ward 5. So "Scores of Votes Mistallied for Every Democratic Candidate..." would be completely wrong according to the data so far displayed at the NH recount. Better change it. A suggestion would be "Scores of Votes Mistallied For Major Democratic Candidates..."

COMMENT #120 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/19/2008 @ 3:50 pm PT...





Runaway fontsy ...

COMMENT #121 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/19/2008 @ 3:51 pm PT...





Dredd fixy runaway fotsy

COMMENT #122 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/19/2008 @ 3:53 pm PT...





... fontsy ... ...

COMMENT #123 [Permalink]

... KestrelBrighteyes said on 1/20/2008 @ 12:10 pm PT...





Have y'all seen this yet? HOLES HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!! If it were paychecks or money being delivered this way, the media would be all over it and the general public would be having a cow!

COMMENT #124 [Permalink]

... Quizmos said on 1/20/2008 @ 3:25 pm PT...





So is there a "there" there? Or is all this just a waste of our time, as in like; "They said she got 1001 more votes than we did, but our hours of rehashing and thousands of dollars invested show she only won by 999 votes." Looks like this story needs to grow some toes before it can hope for legs. Any more to go on here Brad?

COMMENT #125 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/20/2008 @ 7:52 pm PT...





... Quizmos panicked... "..." Never mind... ain't worth repeating.

If you're not going to bother to read then why are you here? The recount is far from finished. FWIW... the total meltdown of the chain of custody is also getting the same "nothing to see here" routine at Daily Kos... no less than two front page references today by "DimfromCT" disparaging recounts and even more "fraud" nonsense in the comment thread. The sane dkosians still valiantly struggle against teh ignorant, though...

COMMENT #126 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/20/2008 @ 9:41 pm PT...





Are those filing boxes in the pictures? Anyone else bothered by that? The holes in the ends that serve as handles on those kinds of boxes. I thought ballot boxes were supposed to be SEALED containers? Did I see that right?

COMMENT #127 [Permalink]

... Trent M. Winston said on 1/21/2008 @ 9:37 am PT...





Brad it bothers me that you buy into the hype. This counntry does not have a Democracy, and never has. What we are supposed to have is a Deocratically elected Republic. Our founding fathers went to great pains to develope this, The Great Experiment, because none of them believed a Democracy could work. Please read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are a group of Essays published in New York Newspapers between the years of 1787 and 1788 written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to better explain their intent with the Constitution to the public. These short Essays explain specifically what our Founding Father meant and what their fears were without any spin. The Diebold voting machines are a problem, but they are just an example of what happens when everyone loses sight of what we are fighting for. Our founding Fathers warned us about this in Federalist Paper #4 except John Jay used a different referance, but it can be applied to this. A Democracy is the rule by majority, and a Republic is rule by law. We are supposed to Democratically elect people to protect and create laws, period. That is what your election is. Today we elect people who make us feel warm and fuzzy. That is why I have very little faith in the future of this experiment. Plato (423-348 BC) said a Democracy could never work. He said men would come to power based on their looks and family instead of thier skill. He said that roughly 2,407 years ago. All of our Founding Father studied Plato prior to constructing this government. Plato's word are especially true today in the TV age.

COMMENT #128 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/21/2008 @ 3:54 pm PT...

