But the hand-counted ballot count broke significantly differently: Clinton 34.9 per cent, Obama 38.6 per cent
Did Hillary Really Win? RECOUNT! She Lost! Voter Fraud? 
It’s that dreaded Right Wing Conspiracy again, it’s Bush’s fault, no Roves fault, no in reality the Bush administration really wants her to be President, the way to pay her back for helping defeat Gore… Ya, that’s the ticket.
Remember, Diebold is a company founded by and still linked to wealthy right-wing investors. See, what I tell you.
Diebold Again: Did Hillary Really Win New Hampshire?
Could someone have messed with the vote in New Hampshire?
That is what some people are wondering, after looking closely at the totals in the votes for surprise Democratic primary victor Hillary Clinton, and for Barack Obama, who placed instead of winning as all the polls had predicted he would. And thanks to candidate Dennis Kucinich, we are likely to find out. Kucinich today filed a request, and a required $2000 fee, to order up a manual recount of the machine ballots cast in the state.
Polls taken as late as the day before the Tuesday vote showed Obama up by 10 to 15 points over Clinton, whom he had just beaten the week before in Iowa, but when the votes were counted, Clinton ended up beating Obama in New Hampshire 39.4 per cent to 36.8 per cent. In a replay of what happened in Ohio in 2004, exit polling reportedly also showed Obama to be winning the New Hampshire primary.
When that’s not what happened, shocked polling firms and surprised pundits, all of whom had been expecting a big Obama win, were left stumbling for explanations for the Hillary comeback from an 8 per cent drubbing in Iowa (even the Clinton campaign, whose own internal polling had predicted her defeat, were at a loss). Explanations ranged from her teary eyed final public appearance before primary day and some sexist heckling she had received, to dark talk about a wave of hidden racism in the voting booth.
But there were anomalies in the numbers that have some people suggesting something else: vote fraud.
What has had eyebrows raised is a significant discrepancy between the vote counts done by voting machine, and the ones done by hand.
In New Hampshire, 81 per cent of the voting was done in towns and cities that had purchased optical scan machines from the Diebold Election Systems (now called Premiere Election Solutions), a division of Diebold Corp., a company founded by and still linked to wealthy right-wing investors. In those towns, all voting was done on the devices, called Accuvote machines, which read paper ballots completed by voters who use pens or pencils to fill in little ovals next to the candidate of their choice. The ballots are then fed into, read, and tallied by the machines. The other 19 per cent of voting was done in towns that had opted not to use the machine, and to use hand-counted paper ballots instead.
The machine tally was Clinton 39.6 per cent, Obama 36.3 per cent - fairly close to the final outcome. But the hand-counted ballot count broke significantly differently: Clinton 34.9 per cent, Obama 38.6 per cent.
Could something have happened in those machines to shift some votes away from Obama or some of the other candidates in the race, and over to the Clinton total?
If all the votes cast had split the way the hand counts split, Obama would have won New Hampshire by over 10,000 votes, instead of losing to Clinton by about 5500 votes.
“My suspicion is that nothing untoward happened here,” says Doug Jones, a professor of computer sciences at the University of Iowa and a member of the board of examiners that approved the use of the same Diebold optical scanning machines in Iowa. “But at the same time, the Diebold machines are vulnerable to viruses that can be spread through the machines by the PCMCIA memory cards, and there are other things that can go wrong too. I’d be much happier if they had a routine random audit procedure in New Hampshire.”
A random audit, he says, would involve doing hand counts of some towns’ optical scan ballots, and comparing those results with the results of the machine reading of those same ballots, as recorded election night.
While California does conduct such random audits as a matter of course, most states, including New Hampshire, do not. According to the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office, any recount of ballots would have to be requested by a candidate, and would have to be paid for by the candidate making the request.
An official in the press office of Obama’s campaign in Chicago, contacted on Wednesday, claimed not to know about the discrepancy between the machine and hand-counted ballots. She said that there was no plan to call for a hand count of machine ballots.
As Prof. Jones notes, requiring a candidate to initiate any hand count makes such hand counts unlikely, since unless the evidence of vote tampering or fraud is overwhelming, such a call would open the candidate to charges of “poor loser.”
Kucinich, in making his recount request, resolved that problem. (Excerpt) Read more here….
var sc_project=1609654; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=15; var sc_security=”26e26d49″;
10 users commented in " Did Hillary Really Win? RECOUNT! She Lost! Voter Fraud? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackGood for Dennis Kucinich! The only candidate with any balls, backbone or integrity. Looking forward to the Las Vegas debates tonight!
What if there was rampant voter fraud? There have been so many “boy who cried wolf” situations, if it actually does happen, would anybody stand up?
When I was a kid, learning about the Electoral College, I always thought there would be total outrage if one candidate won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college…fast forward to the election of 2000, and there were barely protests. Sad.
I feel the same way about voter fraud and these computer voting machines with no paper trail. What if there were voter machine screw-ups that turn the election, would anybody care? stand-up? protest? and if they do, will they be labled crazy?
given Diebold’s pedigree, it’s documented voter machine vulnerabilities and the articulated desire by Diebold’s primary investors to “deliver votes” to targeted candidates; coupled with inconsistencies with polling and exit poll data, a hand recount should be done. We could be seeing the first strike of RNC shadow operation attempts to engineer a presidential win that undermines the will of the people on both sides of the aisle. Or these sudden reversals really reflect voters’ wills. It is worth investigating now so voters’ confidence stays intact.
We could be seeing the first strike of RNC shadow operation attempts to engineer a presidential win that undermines the will of the people on both sides of the aisle.
Of course you don’t see that is could be the under belly of the DNC or the Clinton’s to take an election? interesting, maybe Carl Rove is behind this… Please.
Hi,
Following this icident in the New Hampshiire Primary Result. I was totally bemused and again not taking by suprise.
Why i said this is because, I do listen to an office chart in NH’s office for Hillary Clinton discussed by one of the male officer with Chelsea -the daughter of Hillary. This guy was assuring Chelsea that they the officers would do anything possible to win the NH primary for Hillary.
How would he achieved this, i do not know without the Group called ‘LUMATIC’ of America who can go to any length to carry out Vote fraud at any length.
As long as the source code for these computers is secret (”proprietary”), there will always be a lingering suspicion. One day, that suspicion will cast doubt on an entire election and anarchy will ensue. The only way to avoid becoming another Kenya is to make sure there can be no doubt about election results by taking over the machines and having the code subject to scrutiny by third parties. Or going to other options (such as paper ballots, etc.). Did Hillary win? Was Rove involved? Will a recount really tell if we were hacked?
The issue here is not “vote fraud” or “voter fraud” but “election fraud”. There is a HUGE difference. Vote or voter fraud means voters somehow voted when they were not qualified to do so. That, to any significant degree, is highly unlikely. Election fraud means that the electoral process was compromised and results manipulated by operatives with a reason to want results different from how the voters actually cast their votes.
The $$ required to begin the recount, on the Democratic side, was received by the 3 p.m. (EST) deadline today, according to Nancy Swett at the NH SOS office. Thus, the recount, at least for the Democrats, WILL begin tomorrow (January 16th). It was unclear at 3 p.m. today whether the $$ had been received from the Republican candidate. That should become clear within the next hour or so.
The biggest concern is the “chain of custody” of the ballots. If they, and any unvoted ballots, have not been under strict lock and key, with no tampering, then there is the distinct possibility that the recount will not reveal the real story. And that (tampering with the evidence) will then become the BIG story.
Stay tuned - this will become huge news, IF the mainstream media (MSM) allows it to become so.
For Shame to the “winners” of the election. Where were You Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, and everyone else - Where was YOUR voice in protecting the AMERICAN’S VOICE, THE AMERICAN of whom you say You wish to lead. Where were you when You should be more concerned.
You may not care for your Vote, but YOU SHOULD CARE that I care! That my mother, father, brother, cousin, neighbor cares that our voice is heard.
So, Shame on You for not having a voice!
Karen M
After reading several Websites concerning the NH Recount, I conclude that a total recount will not be done and that, even though possible fraud may be involved, nothing will be done about it. I feel that my vote will not count. I’m so angry and discouraged that I doubt that I will ever vote again.
I obviously doesn’t just happen here (Kenya)
Leave A Reply