Friday, January 11, 2008

Not again...Diebold wins it for Hillary?

Dennis Kucinich has called for a public recount of the votes in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary.

What? Does he think he'll pick up 120,000 votes and win it? Hell no! he sees this as a perfect opportunity to test the reliability of electronic voting machines against a paper ballot.

Just so you know...The biggest reason for the final falling out between John Edwards and John Kerry was Kerry going yellow and failing to push for an investigation and recount of the votes and voting process in Ohio in 2004. Every statistician that has looked at Ohio thinks it was manipulated and probably stolen for George Bush, giving him his second term.

So what made this pop up on the Kucinich radar? Pre-election polls predicted a 3-5% win for Obama. When the votes were counted it was a mathematical reversal and a win for Hillary. (I need to re-look at exit polls)

All the votes in new Hampshire that were counted electronically show a win for Hillary: 52.95% to 47.05%

All the votes in new Hampshire that were counted by hand show a win for ObamaL 52.95% to 47.05%

This is as statistically unlikely as Ohio was, when the overwhelming majority of the tally errors that were discovered favored George W. Bush and not John Kerry.

Here's Kucinich:

"New Hampshire is in the unique position to address – and, if so determined, rectify – these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation."

Hillary Clinton received a seven point advantage in Diebold counted districts as opposed to hand counted districts.

Read the numbers for yourself:

I am struck by one thing in all this, and I have to tell you that there is a remote...very damned remote...possibility that our elections have been and will be relatively honest and accurate but I am not reassured by the overwhelming reluctance of our lwmakers to even investigate electronic election fraud. All by itself, that is a scandal.

Now we may have the smoking gun.

So why not conduct an open investigation? All we have to do is count the paper ballots and compare the talley to the Diebold talley. It will either prove that our suspicions are unfounded...Or prove conclusively that George W. Bush is not, and never has been the "elected" President of the United States.

Mr. Gore...Your Presidential Limo awaits you!

Peace,

Steve

6 comments:

  1. I'm not convince the same anomolies exist as in Ohio and Florida (as well as in others states in the 2000 election especially). Obama's final numbers were what was expected in numerous polls, one university poll (local) had it pretty much right on. I think the differential is also accounted for in the downturn of Edwards and a slighter upturn in Hillary's which Zogby said he was seeing in his final poll although he had insufficient data to publish on its own.

    Although I agree with your concern about the reluctance of investigating electronic voting fraud, my concern is that when it doesn't show any fraud in this instance it will be used as a see, it's okay, there has been no fraud (in any elections) - you think there was reluctance before ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would depend on the frame. These machines have a paper trail. My own state of Tennessee, does not have this as a mandatory requirement. If the paper ballots back up the electronic count, everyone could be relieved and we could point out how valuable the paper was in reassuring the public.

    I keep wondering why I get a paper copy of a 99 cent transation at Burger King and can't get one at my voting booth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The possibility of Diebold treason popping up again cannot be overlooked simply because of Hillary's corporate-friendly ways.
    It wouldn't hurt at all to verify if the paper trail, which is there to double check in the first place, is actually working. New Hampshire is a good place to test it and we have plenty of time to do it.

    "I keep wondering why I get a paper copy of a 99 cent transation at Burger King and can't get one at my voting booth."

    Heh, ;)
    My ATM machine up the street here is made by Diebold. It gives me a receipt every time with every detail of the transaction.
    Which means the only reason the voting machines don't is to enable vote fraud. There's no other possible rationalization.

    ReplyDelete
  4. bizgrrl3:53 PM

    Which means the only reason the voting machines don't is to enable vote fraud. There's no other possible rationalization.

    In speaking to someone in charge of picking voting machines, they said price was an issue when electing not to choose one with a printer.

    Although, I would be afraid many people would take this as something negative against Clinton, I think it would be a good test of electronic voting machines. Can we trust the test, though? Who/what can we trust?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi bizgrrl. :)

    I see the point, but I don't think there's a choice between ATM machines that print and one's that don't. I don't see why there should be one concerning voting machines. There shouldn't be two different kinds. Just the ones that do print.

    But you ask the single most valid question there is in America today,

    Who can we trust?

    Dennis Kucinich, MoveOn...
    It's a damn short list and subject to one's personal knowledge and deepest gut feeling.

    I'm glad I'm a person of faith at time like these. I can still trust God.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:38 AM

    we can trust the corporations.. and while we are at it ..we can count on cnn and fox for unbiased news .ha

    ReplyDelete