nh primary errors found

http://www.bradblog.com/



if errors with the diebold are found more i think obama in 1st edwards in 2nd and clinton 3rd


machines gave Clinton more

That's what my grandpa always said, anyway.

Glad you're here to see all the hiollarity ...while it's still here.

Tonight's been remarkably rich in such moments.

Some thing really should be collected and given their proper due :)

:)

:rofl:
Who'd actually post in a GD: WTF Forum though?
WTF? people don't really self-identify as such.
We'd have to appoint a WTF? monitor to round them up and herd them to the right place.
And then we'd lose the sheer joy at finding one smack dab in the middle of an otherwise lucid flame-fest. Decisions, decisions....

Cut the crap and stop posting now!

What are you - drunk or something?

But how does a machine that is simply supposed to be scanning and tallying (do I have that right?)miscount like that?

(I think it's hysterical that the Republicans are in red, the Dems in blue.)

NOW CAN WE DUMP THESE MACHINES????

One bad precinct - Manch 5 made them all lose a pile of votes that offset the gains.

The 12 is a bit...interesting.

And yes. Machines need ta go!

mind can go blank in a monotonous jobs.

Error proof.

reliably LOL.

Anyway, from the results so far, I don't see any Diebold mischief.
Now what do I do with my tin foil hat??

The link you give shows all candidates votes down a bit, but then if you go to the SOS page linked in the BradBlog story, many of Clinton's votes go up. The overall result is, so far, the same.

Where do you get "machines gave Clinton more?"

RIF - reading is fundamental

Look at the OP.

CLINTON 683 619
EDWARDS 255 217
OBAMA 404 365

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

where is the theft?

Hillary had a net loss of 25 votes. Overall, however, she has gained votes.

Somehow, all the candidates are receiving fewer votes with the hand recount than they did with the machine count.

Yet, at other places in the page, it says that the machines did not register a lot of votes and recorded some ballots as blank because the ink in certain pens was not a proper type that could be read by the machines.

So I'm confused.

The election results are unchanged, but enough of the count is wonky so that NOBODY TRUSTS THOSE MISERABLE EVIL MACHINES.

It would have been really bad if people thought that our concerns are groundless because this election was unchanged.

Doesn't explain the claim that Obama had more in the hand count, however. Not happening SO FAR.

but that only Kucinich and Clinton people are there to observe. It notes that in an update, further down the page. I find that hard to believe.

as you can see hillary tried to steal

:wtf:

the spread of diebold vs handcounts is

obama spread 39 more votes added with machine

edwards spread 38 more votes added with machine


clinton spread 64 more votes added with machine

What on earth are you talking about? Can you type in full English or are you somehow crippled?

so somehow the votes got flooped?

But I don't think Obama or Edwards believe there was any deliberate cheating here. However, these are Republican machines and we know they can be hacked ... I just don't think the Republicans actually care to win this year.

Anyone who gets the job is going to age ten years in the first ten minutes. War, recession, you name it. Good luck on coming out alive. EVERYTHING is a bloody mess.

The Republicans are going to let us get stuck in the La Brea and then show up in 2 years claiming to have all the answers.

So far at 11 PM Pacific, the recount shows:
Clinton loses 12 votes
Obama loses 2 votes
Edwards loses 12 votes

Seems that here the machines gave everyone more than they earned.

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

Notice that if you drop Manchester ward 5, which seemed to have something wacky going on (a total of 141 extra votes split between the top three), you wind up with everyone gaining votes.

Clinton gains 52
Obama gains 37
Edwards gains 26

Looks like here, the machines gave everyone less than they earned, which makes sense since the machines spoil votes more readily than a hand count.

Either way you want to look at it, I'm not seeing your assertion that the machines gave Clinton more...unless you're just using the numbers from Manchester Ward 5, which would be pretty dishonest, especially since everyone got more votes.

in numbers for each fell within an anticipated % rate, based on actually counting improperly filled out ballots that wouldn't have scanned correctly. Will be interesting to see if it holds.

Manchester 5 is just all out wonky.

College kids? Little old ladies?

Actually, it sounds like a soccer team.

http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/htmlprofiles/manchester.html

And it seems they've had a "Master Plan" since 1993. Whatever that means. :D

Shit, I work HARD for my numbers - he posts absolute crap and look at his numbers go up.

Grrrrrrr.

Even though I'm not for Hillary this stuff gets old.Every time someones candidate loses anymore some screams diabold.

Yes we need transparent paper ballot voting but we don't need to look for fraud every time someone we don't want wins.I remember when McKinney lost her primary in Ga. The numbers pretty much fell in line with poll numbers,which were predicting a double digit loss,yet within minutes of the posted results people were claiming fraud.

The machines did not give Clinton more.

Right now the recount is as follows:

Clinton
Edwards
Obama

ALL AT -12 VOTES.

Kucinich had -7 votes

Did you just read Bradblog or did you actually go through ALL the recount number, like I did?

starts here. I've got 86. Anybody?

....say randamly chosen 7th Graders from randomly chosen schools in NH.

Human recounters make decisions on voter intent. Machine scanners do not. The scanner has parameters that determine if an oval is filled in or not.

There should be a pile of questionable ballots in the human recount that a second group of counters should study and determine if the intent to fill seems to be indicated.

There is no process or conversation like this with total electronic voting systems with no paper trails. There can be no recount.