Ward 4 Nashua also has some pretty cheesy numbers in the NH recount

NH ELECTION CONTEST UPDATE: 7.5% VOTE COUNT DISCREPANCY FOUND IN NASHUA, WARD 4 FOR CLINTON, EDWARDS


Clinton

Diebold: 1030, Hand-Count 959 / 7.4% error rate

Edwards

Diebold: 405, Hand-Count 377 / 7.42% error rate

Obama

Diebold: 673, Hand-Count 678 / 0.73% error rate


Whether this kind of error rate found in selected voting wards would actually change things is not nearly as important as the need we have to insure that the votes are counted in a transparent, verifiable way by HUMAN BEINGS.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5591

the many bulletproof, rigorous chain-of-custody fail-safe procedures used by the state of New Hampshire, to assure a valid hand recount of the votes... at:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org

It takes a while to load, but so does Bradblog.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=340188

bbv.org = bev harris

Old story, that bev stuff. Too bad yall have her hanging around yer necks. The weight must be killing yall. Hope yall can be free of that crap and get back to fighting the real enemies.

But I get the feeling that yall will never be free. Sad.

A grifter is a grifter is a grifter.

She took money and research from DUers. The research she claimed as her own, but we have tons of threads proving she lied.

She accused other DUers of filing a qui tam lawsuit, when all the while she was the one doing the filing. The $76,000 she was awarded went into her personal account.

She threatened to sue Skinner and DU twice and has been banned from DU twice.

But what she did to Andy Stephenson was inhumane. :mad:

She is NOT welcome here, nor is her "work"!

Carrying that dead weight and rolling around in that shit? Are ya happy? Ya seem happy. Meanwhile our real enemies are laughing at you. Sad.

What part of, she is not welcome on this board do you not understand?

EarlG ADMIN
Fri Dec-03-04 11:31 AM

Statement on the Bev Harris situation

Over the past two years Bev Harris has received a great deal of support from the members of Democratic Underground, in her research, publicity efforts, and fundraising. In return we have played host to an 18 month-long squabble between Ms. Harris and other verified voting activists, and have even been threatened with lawuits by Ms. Harris herself. Despite this, we have publicly remained mostly silent on the verified voting squabbles.

We believe verified voting is a topic of crucial importance, and have been uncomfortable taking sides on an issue which, frankly, we should all be on the same side of anyway. Therefore we have kept most of our correspondence with the various factions private and attempted to cool things down behind the scenes. Like all issues discussed at DU, we have tried to focus the discussion of verified voting on the topic at hand, and not on the personalities of the participants. However, in light of the recent troubles, we feel compelled to make a statement.

In 2003 Bev Harris, along with a few other verified voting activists, were banned from DU for engaging in personal squabbles on the message board after they were repeatedly instructed to stop. Around that time, Ms. Harris threatened us with a libel lawsuit, claiming that we could be held responsible for comments made by other message board members who doubted the credibility of her project. She never followed through on this threat and we never heard from her lawyers.

Ms. Harris was reinstated shortly afterwards, after agreeing to put an end to the problems that got her banned in the first place. Nonetheless, those problems periodically recurred after her reinstatement. A few weeks ago, Ms. Harris again used our website to threaten DU with lawsuits, in her postings, in private messages to other members, and in rude alerts she sent to the moderators.

We sent a message to Ms. Harris telling her to stop hassling our moderators and members, and informing her that if she had a legal concern, she needed to contact us directly. We also let her know that her continued participation on this message board was dependent upon her behavior. The legal threats stopped, but we received no response from either Ms. Harris or her lawyers.

This is our personal experience with Ms. Harris. We cannot confirm or deny the veracity of claims made by others, including many former colleagues, her former publisher, and Keith Olbermann. But we can confirm that the claims made by others about Ms. Harris are not inconsistent with our own experiences.

We have remained as patient as possible in our dealings with Ms. Harris because we believe that the topic of verified voting is a crucial one. We were prepared to sacrifice a certain amount of tranquility on the message board if verified voting was being discussed in a generally positive manner.

Ms. Harris's recent spat with Keith Olbermann has made positive discussion of verified voting increasingly difficult on DU. For over a year and a half, our members have been split into pro- and anti-Bev factions, and recent events have only exacerbated that division. Yet this morning Ms. Harris returned to DU and started posting as if nothing had happened, while making liberal use of the alert button to complain to the moderators about our enforcement of the message board rules. At this point our patience finally ran out.

The fact that the disruptions have continued, despite repeated warnings from the administrators, leaves us with no other option but to bar Bev Harris from posting on this website. We no longer believe that it is productive to allow her to use DU as a platform to promote herself while simultaneously trashing us, our moderators, and others who have been previously supportive of her cause.

We still remain firmly committed to promoting discussion of verified voting, and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved.

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750#114188

An enemy of DU LLC, maybe. But not an enemy of the fight against the theives.

Now read this:

"....and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved."...

Quit shoveling shit. K?

if you take up for that liar.

Do you also approve of what she did to Andy?

stole Andy's payroll deduction money, slandered him when he was in post op, posted trouble's personal info to the net, faked her tax returns do YOU not understand?

Go kneel at her board. Don't bring it here. We won't have it.

How ugly can you get for you to tell me what to bring here? I kindly ask yall to quit shoveling and point out that DU has asked the same and you personally tell me to kneel at her board. So very ugly.

Enough, please.

he makes the DU look good...

"....and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved."...

Thanks EarlG. :patriot:

All we can do is try. If some folks want to shovel the crap and get themselves known for that, there isn't much else we can do.

it's the truth. But if you want to believe that fraud, it's on you.

Either way, there will be people here that will bring up her story everytime that fucking grifter's name comes up.

you do not speak for all of us at the DU.

Thanks Stevepol for the thread. :)

Do you like how she stole money from DUers?

Do you like the research done by DUers that she stole and claimed it as her own?

Do you like that she threatened to sue Skinner and DU?

Do you like lying, grifting frauds?

Are you a bevbot?

"....and we wish Ms. Harris well in her efforts to shed light on this important issue. From now on, we encourage all of our members to focus on discussing the verified voting issue itself, rather than the personalities involved."...

Move on!

So what do you think about Stevepols thread? :)

Are you Bev Harris?

What do you think of Stevepols thread?

Hand Counted Paper bALllots or the thread gets it!

neck of the woods. :smoke:

Do you really like what Bev did to Andy while he was on his deathbed?

and I welcome her work at the DU. NEXT QUESTION. :)

It was late at night, and I've got a slow connection on an old notebook at home. Bradblog just isn't very accessible for me, as a result, and I'm very interested in the subject matter. ...Leaving aside the webdesign and other navigation issues. I just have problems when I try to go directly to Brad's site.

Freepress.org & freepress.net are trusted alternatives to Bradblog, but neither one came up with anything in the search field. The Election Defense Alliance may be another possible site, for these issues -- I think, I won't believe it for sure until kpete & TimeForChange confirm it -- but even their most recent stuff is 4 or 5 days old:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

So, all I wanted was some idea of the latest info, what was going on with the recount, and who was doing what.

Anyway, yes mea culpa, I knowingly posted a link to BBV. My bad, sorry.

In my defense (besides the fact that it was very late, and I was only trying to link to the photographs at the site, a few of which are interesting) that DU post on BBV is at least a couple of years old. And I had just recently, in the meantime, seen an online reference to Bev, and BBV.org, elsewhere -- on Bradblog.

Here it is, just a google search for Bradblog + Bev Harris + 2007:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ypyrk6JLA2UJ:www.bradblog.com/%3Fp%3D5544+bradblog+bev+harris+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Go to the cached search link, if you want to see what Bev said to Brad, on that web page. You'll never find it without the color highlighting for the search terms.

But, you're right, ripping off Randi (!?!) *was* awful. She's The Best.

Only I always wondered if that whole scandal wasn't in some way part of the whole cover-up. Could Bev possibly be, to the election theft of 2004, what Oswald was to Dealey Plaza, in 1963?

OK, I'll never do it, again.

This link has me still wondering, though, what was really going on?
Wait for the full download and scroll all the way to the bottom, and you get the same photos I linked to, and a credit to BBV:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5586#more-5586

Oops, I don't know if it's a real double post, or if it's because I was editing, but I think we just did an online equivalent of answering machine 'phone tag'...

I read your post #18 and understand it was late. My only concern is keeping that lying grifter, her name and her "work" off of this site.

If Brad wants to quote her, he can do that on his site. I requested that he not post her shit here. He ignored me. So now I ignore him.

There are a number of excellent groups researching this issue that are seeking the truth. Bev is not. She is only seeking more money and more drama.

What she did to Andy may have cost him his life. She will never be forgiven for the inhumane crap she did to him.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/NEWS08/267211607/-1/XML12

According to the story, the discrepancies occurred because officials in Nashua 5 wrongly believed that some ballots with write-ins for vice president had not been counted for president. I'll refer folks to the story for details.

hand counting, not machine counting?

Means nothing to the tinfoilers-- the article must be wrong, too.

Someone has to do it, after all.

This particular mistake was (apparently) human error, but it came from a misunderstanding of how the machines operate. Arguably if NH didn't have the machines in the first place, no such thing would have happened.

That said, anyone who thinks that hand counts historically are error-free (or even fraud-free) is off the wall. (That obviously doesn't settle the question of whether and when machines should be used.)

Surely some of the errors came from the machines' inability to register voter intent, and there may have been other types of machine error as well. So far, these appear to be small.

Plenty of people who never did holler that the NH results were impossible -- or even unlikely -- really do think that ballots should be routinely recounted, or audited using statistical samples, just to make sure. Of course, that entails having some ballots to audit; NH is lucky there. I support routine audits, not routine 100% recounts.

And of course some people think the scanners should all be destroyed. Anyone is welcome to believe that, but NH doesn't exactly prove the point.

And, yeah, there are some people who will probably go to the grave believing that Hillary stole New Hampshire.

the gravest of human errors, although proper training of people who do a job two or three times a year is problematic when budgets are tight.

I've been ranting for years that hand counting is is one of the most error and fraud prone ways of countig votes, or anything else. To say nothing of being ridiculously time consuming. Why else would we have invented the adding machine, the abacus, and other devices to help us count things? Unless broken, machines count far faster and more accurately than we do. We trust our money to ATMs, cash registers, and bank computers, so why not trust our votes to such machines?

In this case, as in so many others, it wasn't the machine that had the problem-- it was the human voters and poll employees who had the problem, and didn't fix it before the recount, presumably because they didn't know they had a problem.

(That does NOT mean that I think DREs and other machines without proper recount capability should be used.)

A scanner doesn't have to be "broken" in order to miscount egregiously. We know this.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to get rid of scanners. As you say, hand-counters can miscount egregiously as well. Gotta look at the whole picture.

So what! We are talking about an election, meaning an adversarial process with historically provable incentives to cheat. It's because I don't trust humans that I reject machine counts. Cheating on the hand counts involves local conspiracies that always end up revealed (even when they get away with it). Cheating with programmable machines, however, can be done by remote operators (the corporation that makes the machine, or a hacker) undetectably.

Please don't pretend not to see the difference.

it seems that every time someone proposes an audit system that would contend with undetectable remote hacking, someone else ripostes that it would be vulnerable to local conspiracies.

Sort of on the scale of "vote fraud" (one person cheating) compared to election fraud (results fixed centrally), wouldn't you think?

I would take what you said as an argument that New Hampshire's system is pretty good -- which, in fact, I do think. Was that your point?

NH's system may or may not be good. Long as programmable machines do the count, there will always be doubt, so I'm glad there is a recount. It won't prove that optiscan is trustworthy, however. Again, to fix a paper ballot election demands huge on-the-ground operations. A programmable counting mechanism can always be fixed, so it always demands a hand count in my opinion.

To beat a well-designed random audit also demands huge on-the-ground operations.

But hey, you want 100% hand counts, go for it.

Simple and right to the point, Thanks JackRiddler

NAIL MEETS HEAD!!!

What a bunch of amateurs.

Same one as Bradblog has posted here.