Recount Finds No Voting Problems So Far

Source: WMUR New Hampshire

Gardner: Totals Change By Few Votes


CONCORD, N.H. -- ...

CONCORD, N.H. -- ...

"We did nine of the 12 wards in Manchester, and a lot of the votes were exactly the same," Gardner said. "Some went up by a vote or two."

Immediately following the Jan. 8 vote, some groups reported that Hillary Clinton did better in communities where ballots were machine counted, while Barack Obama did better in communities that used hand counting.

But analysts said the rumors were making a false correlation. They noted that the sort of communities that would use machines to count the ballots, including large cities, were demographically more likely to vote for Clinton.

Gardner said it could take up to six weeks to sift through all of the 287,000 Democratic ballots cast in the New Hampshire primary. A Republican recount has also been requested, but Gardner said that wouldn't happen until after the Democratic recount is finished.


Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/15078710/detail.html

---

Clinton, edwards and obama all lose exactly 12 votes.

Check my math.... they each lose and gain votes in different places but so far their all
at -12 weird

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


Obama
1309 1308
1614 1616
370 373
792 795
503 502
908 908
637 636
458 459
519 524
404 365
587 590
421 421
588 587
488 485
509 511
435 438
487 492
1954 1960
1052 1052
416 417
14451 14439 -12


Clinton
970 963
1630 1630
342 343
683 683
674 677
1026 1030
930 935
551 558
696 702
683 619
875 880
753 755
950 951
899 902
867 877
622 622
732 737
2325 2328
1092 1094
683 685
17983 17971 -12


Edwards
424 427
529 530
158 161
327 327
295 297
324 327
322 324
165 165
237 237
255 217
348 350
270 272
354 354
335 335
299 303
173 173
244 244
853 856
496 497
164 164
6572 6560 -12

:wtf: I can understand gaining votes on a hand recount, since humans are often better than scanners at detecting faint or "improper" marks... but losing votes? What's the explanation for that? :shrug:

Obama 404 365 -39
Clinton 683 619 -64
Edwards 255 217 -38

Very interesting.

I put the totals for all three into a spreadsheet and included the difference and the percentage of change in each precinct. Not only did that make it easier to compare results, but it showed something important--there's no pattern to the discrepancies between machine count and hand count with one big exception--Manchester ward 5.

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama lost 64, 38, and 39 votes there respectively. That equates to a difference of 9.83%, 16.1%, and 10.14%! The differences in the other precincts was nowhere near that in terms of the machines counting wrong. Something screwy had to have gone on there, but since all three lost a lot of votes, it doesn't make sense for it to be an intentional move by one candidate.

Only three other precincts had errors resulting in a 1% or higher change: Manchester Ward 12 (Obama gained 5 votes), Manchester Ward 10 where Clinton and Edwards gained 10 and 4 votes, and Manchester Ward 3 (Clinton gained 7 votes). In all three cases, the differences for the unaffected candidates was very small (difference of about a quarter of a percent on average).

They will claim we cried wolf, and they will be right.

Oh well.

Additionally, the NH machines produce a paper trail, so the voter can read what the machine recorded and walk right over to the administration desk if it is wrong.

in other words - the SORE LOSERS...the obamabots...

We are all losers if we can't trust that our votes will be counted..correctly!! Wouldn't it be great if all of the Banks had ATM's that gave us a higher balance than we thought we had??? If they can make ATM's that work as they should, why can't their damn voting tabulators do the same???? GROW UP !!:banghead:

The paranoia is out of control and obscuring the real reasons to be paying attention.

to demand recounts. If nothing illegal or "fixed" turns up, fine. But that will not stop further recounts where they are needed to resolve issues of distrust, anomalies, discrepancies, etc.

Who the hell are "they" anyway? The R's had discrepancies on their side, too, and have demanded and are conducting a recount.

This "crying wolf" BULLSHIT is a tiresome, irrelevant, dumbass meme that means nothing. Just the opposite from your "prediction" can be expected: the more The People see that recounts can and do happen, they more they will demand them, and the more displeased they will be if there is no paper that can be recounted. The whole process gives CONFIDENCE IN THE SYSTEM, not the other way around

So rest easy, Hillary supporter--if there's nothing amiss, your girl won fair and square, didn't she, and now you'll have the proof. You'd think the HRC supporters would welcome a recount, considering how "popular" and "electable" and everything she is, and how "sure" they are that she won. But no, they have to belittle and ridicule the most basic process of democracy, they are so threatened that it will turn out the results were fixed.

have to worry about which election is fixed and which one isn't.
Paper ballots with random audits. That's what I want. I would also like my election
not privatized please.

I need to KNOW not guess that my vote is counted fairly-is that too much to ask?

Requesting a recount is a right, not a public relations campaign.

At worst they can increase the fees, and if they do so too much
they can be brought to court on it for obstructionism.

"The public" and the elections officials can hate it all they
want, it's still a right, and not subject to the whim of public
opinion.

Given the amount of amateur behavior exposed WRT chain of custody
in NH, the recount was certainly worth doing if just to poke a stick
into the lazy SoS'a arse. Moreover, it is now a threat that if they
don't get their operation working in a professional manner they'll
get smacked with recounts routinely.

What this does do is raise public awareness that machines could be a problem. This was not the best place to do such a re-count as it dealt only with paper ballots. They are easy to recount. It is in states or municipalities that have touch screen machines that are really suspect. Even paper trails from these machines are suspect because the voter does not fill them out. The machine fills them out exactly as the machine registers the vote and that may not be what the voter had intended as it has been suggested that some machines may just switch some votes. I am not against optical scan machines at the moment but I think every single touch screen machine should be thrown into Boston Harbor...while dressed up like ??????

And before you say that's no big deal, we'll remind you that in 2004, had just 6 votes per precinct been registered in Ohio for John Kerry instead of George W. Bush, we'd have a different person sitting in the White House right now.


www.bradblog.com

The criminal media is trying to cover this up too.

hmmm.

God has decreed ALL VOTES ARE FOR OBAMA! No one must disagree or it's FRAUD!

Getting your story ready for Nevada and South Carolina? What if you win and Hillary says fraud?

shows that it was.

Even Zogby couldn't explain why his NH polling was off by nearly 10 points.

edit: all of this 'women coming out in droves for hillary' hype makes little sense, because women did of course participate in the professional pre-election polls. that excuse would make sense only if the very crucial female vote were somehow deliberately excluded or unaccounted for in the polling. yeah right, why on earth would they do that? it stinks.

People will say one thing in a poll but vote differently in the secrecy of their ballot.

That's been happening since forever.

If a comparison must be made then the exit polling is the one to use. That's what they did in the Ukraine and in Kenya.

This thread was not moved to the dungeon. Yet?

The very best kind.

What will it take to restore faith/trust in the process?
More than this.

And if there were distinct differences between candidates (although strangely apparently only 2)in the handcounted and machine counted precincts (or whatever the dividing line), how do people justify their seeming belief that a small preliminary sample in one or two low population states is enough information to eliminate candidates from serious consideration in the rest of the nation?
Thats either a big leap, or just a phony excuse.

to see here. Just move along to Tuesday. That's it, just keep moving. Nothing to see here. If there is a problem,. we will let you know. Just keep moving along. thank you very much.

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 1/17/2008 6:26PM
Huge New Diebold Disparities Found in Manchester, Ward 5 During NH Hand Counts
Scores of Votes Mistallied for Every Democratic Candidate...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5573

As mentioned last night, in this disturbing article, the early results of the hand counts of the Diebold precinct in Dennis Kucinich's election contest in New Hampshire are now being posted, as they come in, at this New Hampshire SoS page.

As mentioned earlier today, NH SoS Bill Gardner told WMUR in NH that "We did nine of the 12 wards in Manchester, and a lot of the votes were exactly the same...Some went up by a vote or two." He didn't, of course, note that a lot of the vote counts (most of them) were off by 5 or more.

And now, the rest of the numbers from the rest of the Manchester wards are coming on. And get a load of Ward 5:....

per your link:


"Well, they're sort of correct. "Voting" problems aren't the concern. As we frequently point out, the voters are still doing fine. Leave them alone. The election problems, and the horrible administration thereof, is another matter entirely. And on that front, loads of problems have been "found". But only if you bother to look at them. of course.

Given WMUR's following quote from NH Sec. of State Bill Gardner, which is demonstrably wrong in 3 seconds time if you bother to look at the SoS' very own web page for hand count results, it's not a surprise that WMUR thinks everything is just rosy:
"We did nine of the 12 wards in Manchester, and a lot of the votes were exactly the same," Gardner said. "Some went up by a vote or two."

That is what we in the business of actual reporting would call: a lie. Check the numbers for yourself. Yeah, it's technical true that "a lot of the votes were exactly the same," as Gardner says, in the same way that a lot of the troops who go to Iraq don't get killed."


BradBlog staying on top of it!

I don't have a problem if the hand count is slightly different from the scanned count. A small minority of precincts might even be completely screwed up. All this is to be expected. You should expect it too.