Please help me understand these NH vote totals!! Does this show votes FLIPPED for Dems and Repugs?

At checkthevotes.com, they have laid out all the NH vote totals, compared MACHINE and HANDCOUNTED votes, and translated the percentages into a final column of vote differentials. In that column, every candidate, including Other "loses" a number of votes in the machine counts EXCEPT Hillary. Then, if you add up all the votes that express the differential between the machine and handcounted votes Clinton gets 15,717 more votes from the machines than the handcounts - while the aggregate of what everyone else "lost" is 15,718 votes - almost the same number.

AND, the same pattern applies for the Republicans EXCEPT - everyone get FEWER machine counted votes vs handcounted EXCEPT Romney and Rudy. All candidates have 19,125 fewer total votes (based on the % difference of hand-counted vs machine). At the same time, Romney gets 17,922 more votes, and Rudy picks up 1,202 - for a total of 19,124 votes.

PLEASE - help. Does this mean anything at all? Unfortunately, when I copy and paste, you lose the boxed formatting that makes the chart readable. Please check the original source to see the numbers.

http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=DEMOCRATS
http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=REPUBLICANS


HOPEFULLY A COMPLETE, UNFETTERED HAND COUNT WILL TELL US EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW.

***********

Candidate Total Votes Avg. Overall Votes
by Machine Avg. Overall
by Machine Votes
by Hand Avg. Overall
by Hand Machine VS Hand
Clinton 112,238 38.992% 91,600 40.121% 20,638 34.661% 5.460% (15,717 votes*)
Edwards 48,666 16.907% 38,210 16.736% 10,456 17.561% -0.824% (-2,373 votes*)
Gravel 402 0.140% 317 0.139% 85 0.143% -0.004% (-11 votes*)
Kucinich 3,912 1.359% 2,801 1.227% 1,111 1.866% -0.639% (-1,840 votes*)
Obama 104,757 36.393% 81,633 35.756% 23,124 38.836% -3.081% (-8,868 votes*)
Richardson 13,245 4.601% 9,936 4.352% 3,309 5.557% -1.205% (-3,470 votes*)
Other 4,629 1.608% 3,810 1.669% 819 1.375% 0.293% (844 votes*)
TOTALS: 287,849 228,307 59,542

Candidate Total Votes Avg. Overall Votes
by Machine Avg. Overall
by Machine Votes
by Hand Avg. Overall
by Hand Machine VS Hand
Giuliani 20,387 8.533% 16,327 8.638% 4,060 8.135% 0.503% (1,202 votes*)
Huckabee 26,760 11.201% 20,124 10.647% 6,636 13.297% -2.650% (-6,331 votes*)
Hunter 1,220 0.511% 930 0.492% 290 0.581% -0.089% (-213 votes*)
McCain 88,447 37.021% 68,833 36.419% 19,614 39.303% -2.884% (-6,890 votes*)
Paul 18,276 7.650% 13,671 7.233% 4,605 9.228% -1.994% (-4,765 votes*)
Romney 75,202 31.477% 62,455 33.044% 12,747 25.543% 7.502% (17,922 votes*)
Thompson 2,884 1.207% 2,213 1.171% 671 1.345% -0.174% (-415 votes*)
Other 5,733 2.400% 4,451 2.355% 1,282 2.569% -0.214% (-511 votes*)
TOTALS: 238,909 189,004 49,905

The vote differentials are too exact. Is there a math wizard on DU who could calculate the probability of this happening? It has to be about the same as OJ Simpsom's DNA deal at his trial where the odds were higher that the DNA was OJ's than there are people on the planet.

for the cons and other Dems are in line with the exit polls.

And show discrepancies for both parties.

but Kucinich and Richardson are showing negative differences, a percentage could have been flipped to Hillary as well.
I saw my vote default to Bush 5 times in 2004, I am sure that not every voter that used that machine had the same experience
but if Richardson actually had 3470 votes flipped then that is approximately 2.5% of his vote-little adjustments can mean a lot in the overall picture and Hillary "beat" Obama by 2%.

NOTE to the Hillary fans I am not saying that Hillary or any of her people did this. I believe the vote has been adjusted
on these machines by those who put them in place. I believe that these individuals do not believe that the candidates should be duly elected by the American people but selected by those who they feel are the "deciders"

paper) that the voter marks in an oval. These ballots are then fed into the op-scan machine where the votes are tabulated. Without an audit however, we can not be sure than the tabulated totals reflect how the ballots were marked.

Remember the Mexico election where the popular candidate Obrador lost, there was evidence of manipulation at the central
tabulators.

An error (or worse) in the ballot definition programming could, however, create such a problem with central and precinct scanners or DRE's.

it could have lead to some problems as well.

I don't know how that could lead to a problem...but I think I can see a scenario where it provides an opportunity for some creative ballot definition programing...if you know what I mean.

and I think it's going to be a long election.

:-(

I don't mind a competitive race among several candidates, electronic manipulation is different.

they should be tested before the vote is cast by the FEC, oh, wait, I forgot now the FEC is just an advisory board thanks to
Bush.

I think one of the Holt bills called for them to do something with all the Ballot Def Files and the idea, like the commission itself, received a lot of criticism.

I thought I read that they are marginally funded like many regulatory agencies under Bush.

And I think the Holt bill looked to remedy that...to mixed a reaction.

but the desire for election form is there, people just don't want another HAVA.

A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting?

By Tova Andrea WangThursday, August 30, 2007; Page A21
After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.

Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it.

Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901928.html

At the same time, keep in mind the EAC takes it's roll of certifying voting equipment from NASED, a private professional association.

it sounds good on paper but how functional it is may be debatable.

That's really really messed up!!!!!!!!!!!! I think the Repukes were involved in this.

Am I seeing more here than is there?

I am not seeing where you get the 10,000 figure.

it is showing how many were machine counted and how many were hand counted.

We don't have the audit numbers yet.

Please consider kicking $20 to Dennis for standing on this (and paying for it!)

Notice that it says, "Votes are tentatively won or lost with the assumption that the machines are conferring advantages or disadvantages."

What that seems to mean is that they figured how many votes each candidate would have gotten if the scanner percentages matched the hand-count percentages. So, it's still 100% of the scanner votes, but allocated differently. There's no way for one candidate to 'lose' without another candidate 'gaining,' because the total number of votes doesn't change. The only reason there is any difference is due to rounding error.

I'm adamantly of the opinion that the scanner counts shouldn't match the hand counts, because they are from different places. But regardless, there is no special significance to the total being close to zero -- that's just how the math was done.