 |
|
Group(s): Benicia ProgressivesAdd to My Group
|
January 10, 2008 at 16:02:35
UPDATED Obama-Clinton: remarkable opscan v. handcount results by Bruce O'Dell |
|
 
|
UPDATED JANUARY 14, 2007 Correction of EDA’s previously reported statewide anomaly On January 10, 2008, analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) reported that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there was a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand in a head-to-head contest between the two candidates: 
.
.
Table follows:
| ||
| Category | Votes | Clinton vs. Obama percentage |
| Clinton: statewide optical scan tally | 91,717 | 52.95% |
| Obama: statewide optical scan tally | 81,495 | 47.05% |
| Clinton: statewide hand-count tally | 20,889 | 47.05% |
| Obama: hand count | 23,509 | 52.95% |
EDA has subsequently learned that the list of hand-count voting districts in New Hampshire that it used in its initial analysis on January 10, 2008 was outdated; shortly after that list was downloaded a revised list (1) was published by the New Hampshire Secretary of State with fourteen hand-count precincts converted to Diebold optical scan.[1]
While the actual difference between Obama and Clinton hand count and optical scan margins are not a mirror image of each other to four decimal places as we had initially believed, the undeniable fact is that Obama appears to have carried the hand-counted tally statewide, while Clinton carried the optical scan statewide tally, by almost exactly opposite margins remains a remarkable result.
Whenever the outcome of an election is strongly correlated with the method of voting – given the well-known vulnerabilities of the specific model of Diebold equipment in use – additional investigation is warranted. This is especially urgent when the margin between two candidates for ballots counted by hand conforms to the margin between two candidates reflected in hand-count optical scan vote is so far apart - and the hand count matches the pre-election polling so precisely. Our analysis has continued, and additional findings will be published separately.
| Head to Head Clinton v. Obama Pre-election polling | ||
| Category | Votes | Head to Head Clinton vs. Obama percentage | |
| Clinton: statewide optical scan tally | 95,843 | 52.73% | Real Clear Politics (2)Average[2] 1/5 – 1/7/08: Clinton 43.9%Obama 56.1% |
| Obama: statewide optical scan tally | 85,910 | 47.27% | |
| Clinton: statewide hand-count tally | 16,767 | 46.75% | |
| Obama: hand count | 19,097 | 53.25% | |
2 - See Real Clear Politics for a summary of five public polls from 1/5 to 1/7/08, Obama = 38.3%, Clinton = 30.0%. Head to head percentages were calculated as: Clinton = 30/(30+38.3) and Obama= 38.2/(30+38.3)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOLLOWS - see correction above
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least.
EDA and others are proceeding with intra and inter-county results and demographic analysis to better understand what this extremely unusual "coincidence" may indicate. The work to understand what really happened in New Hampshire is far from complete.
In the meantime, what are we to make of all this?
On the one hand, everyone has heard of the unanimous verdict of both private and public opinion polls leading up to the New Hampshire primary, showing Obama with about a 10% lead. And a report on Brad Blog today quotes Chris Matthews on "Hardball" who saw a comparable lead for Obama - about 8% - in the media's "unadjusted" New Hampshire exit poll.
On the other hand, it is a fact that the specific models of Diebold op-scan and central tabulators currently in use to count votes in New Hampshire have been proven, by multiple public demonstrations, to be wide-open to insider manipulation through a variety of mechanisms. Some exploits involve computer programs, and others, simple proximity to the central tabulator or precinct scanner.
So there is an undeniable possibility that the optical scan vote in New Hampshire could have been manipulated by insiders at the outsourced companies that run the election there, or by anyone with hand-on access to the voting and tabulating machines.
One recourse might be to recount the paper ballots by hand, but as we saw in Ohio in 2004, in the absence of a secure chain of custody the accuracy of any after-the fact recount of optical scan and hand-count ballots remains problematic - and the clock is ticking.
I've met some of the people who run elections in New Hampshire and I know that they are proud of their state's historic committment to fair elections. When I testified there last year to their State House Subcommitee on Voting Equipment, I advocated New Hampshire adopt the Universal Ballot Sampling hand-count audit protocol, a statistically-robust way of checking the accuracy of optical scan voting and central tabulation systems. If only the state had chosen to implement that simple and universal hand-count audit protocol for the 2008 primary, these lingering questions about the accuracy of the official count could be have been examined independently.
New Hampshire, and most other states still - unbelievably - run their elections with equipment and procedures so open to insider manipulation that they would lead to serious civil or criminal liability if comparable systems were allowed to run, in any bank in America.
If we can't simply return to the best system of voting, hand-counted paper ballots, why can't we at least put in place the capability for an independent citizen-run verification of the accuracy of our computerized voting equipment on election night?
If you have faith that the Diebold equipment is accurate, you are left only with the supposition that many voters in New Hampshire lie to exit pollsters or are secret racists - and the ones who do so also vote on optical scan equipment.
I think New Hampshire is a better state, and we're a better nation than that; and I'd like to know why the people who run our elections think it's acceptable that I can't prove it.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 38 comments |
|
great article, bruce!
you make complex matters so easy to understand. that's a real gift. we look forward to what your further investigations show. thanks! by Joan Brunwasser (206 articles, 3757 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 751 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 5:06:13 PM  (0+)
|
|
HRC Has the Support of the MIC & Neo-Cons
by Christopher London (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 5:36:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Did Diebold keep Hillary Alive???
One explanation I heard for the discrepency is that the hand counts were from smaller districts...so demographics were different. But, in Iowa, Barack did much worse in the rural areas than in the larger cities (I thought all of Iowa war rural, but what do I know!) by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 5:44:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Good news is, we have the demographic data already
The possibility that there may be demographic factors related to the NH exit poll discrepancy, and to this latest op-scan v. hand-counted paper discrepancy within the official results, is actually something we can check into. Election Defense Alliance has already combined the latest available Census demographics data with the 2008 NH precinct-level results and sent it out to the election integrity community... so that deeper analysis is already underway. Stay tuned. by Bruce O'Dell (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 6:02:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Voice of Reason...
In addition to what you added sir, I would like to point out that not "all" polls had Obama over Clinton by large numbers. The Suffolk/WHDH poll has her down by 1% on the 6th and up by 2% the day before. As Zogby has pointed out, Obama's numbers were simply soft. And, the only reason why he won by so much in Iowa, is because he cheated. In addition, many of the NH polls that has Obama up by such a large margin didn't take into account the number of independants who ended up voting for McCain instead of Obama. Thia race won't get too interesting until 2/5, when the majority of primaries will be open to only democrats, or in states with few independants. by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra (32 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:41:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Polls, polls and election data
OK. perhaps not "universal". But it's certainly notable when both candidates' own polling organizations are caught just as flat-footed as prominent national pollsters. The Edison Media Research exit polls, according to Chris Matthews, tracked Obama +8 (before, of course, they were "adjusted" to confirm to the actual results.) If you believe (and it is a faith-based decision) in the accuracy of the Diebold-era optical scan equipment in NH, you must also believe that the 40,000 Clinton and Obama voters with hand-counted ballots did not lie to exit pollsters in significant numbers, but the 170,000 voters in locations with op-scan voting did lie to exit pollsters in significant numbers. I'm not ready to believe that without additional study, and what I've seen so far is disturbing. If you have evidence Obama cheated in Iowa (where in the absence of op-scan equipment his performance matched polling), you should do what I'm trying to do: lay it out for others to review. by Bruce O'Dell (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:21:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: By your admission and from results, Hillary is unelectable
If Hillary can only win core Democratic votes, if she can't win Independents, then why bother to nominate her, when that's the clearest proof that she's unelectable? Unless Democrats want to hand this election to McCain or Guiliani! by Diamond E. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 6:00:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Exactly the Question - are the Democrats doing the Choosing?
It sounds as though the question at issue is being lost here and it is a compound question: Was the New Hampshire primary hacked and if it was, who did the hacking? It is too tempting to jump to the conclusion that if the results were adjusted in Clinton's favor then Clinton must have been behind it. In fact the people most likely to adjust the results work for Diebolt and this is well known to be a firm with strong Republican ties. Would Republicans favor a Clinton win? That is for you to decide, but personally I think she is the Democratic candidate who is the top favorite of Republicans. by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:45:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Obama cheated?
Ok, Rev Rob, "And, the only reason why he won by so much in Iowa, is because he cheated." Say what?? by Jami (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 9:34:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Speculation on N.H. Vote Ignores Race, Gender Factors
I, too, had my suspicions about the Diebold optical-scan votng machines used in 55 percent of the precincts in the New Hampshire primary. But these machines are over 20 years old. They're the same model used in my home state of Vermont and 23 other states. Unlike the more controversial touchscreen machines, optical scanners are dependent on voters properly marking -- by hand -- their choices on their cards. And voters, especially the elderly and vision-impaired, often make mistakes. I've caught myself making mistakes on my voting card on at least four occasions in the 14 years I've lived in Vermont -- and each time, I've requested, and was granted, a fresh voting card while my spoiled card was discarded. I've never heard of a state with an optical-scan system refusing voters' requests for a replacement ballot card when they've caught themselves making a mistake. So I'm not willing to buy into the "rigged machine" conspiracy theory -- not with optical-scan machines. We can't dismiss the human-error factor here. Nor can we dismiss the "race factor" in the wide discrepancies between the final results and the pre-primary polls. There has been a persistent pattern in many elections where an African American candidate is competing against a white candidate for high office in which white voters lie to pollsters about their feelings about the black candidate. Remember Tom Bradley? The first black mayor of Los Angeles led in all the pre-election polls when he ran for governor in 1982 -- but lost to George Deukmejian. And in 2006, Harold Ford led in all the pre-election polls in his bid to become Tennessee's first black U.S. senator -- but he ended up losing to Bob Corker. And Ford is very much like Barack Obama: A candidate who didn't fit the old mold of a black candidate and who had broad appeal with progressive and moderate white voters. And let's not forget the unprecedented situation of an African American running against a woman for the nation's highest office. We can't dismiss the "gender gap" either. In fact, it appears that the gender gap reared its ugly head big time in this contest at the very last minute. Obama made what turned out to be a major tactical blunder in the final pre-primary debate on January 5 when he made a wisecrack to Hillary Clinton that many women who watched the debate took as a sexist insult. Combine that with Clinton's show of emotion on Primary Eve and there was a last-minute sure of support for Clinton from women that came after the pre-polling had ended. Women accounted for 56 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary -- and they went overwhelmingly for Clinton, according to the exit polls taken on Primary Day. Women sent an unmistakable message to Obama -- and to John Edwards: Don't patronize Clinton because she's a woman. If you do, we'll punish you at the ballot box. by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 5:04:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Exclusive focus on voter behaviors ignores machine factors
I would be willing to consider simple voter dynamics as an explanation for what happened in New Hampshire; the problem is that you have to believe the most savvy observers all got those dynamics wrong, not just in pre-election polls, way the beyond the margin of error, but also exit pollsters - who ask people how they just voted, after all pre-election dynamics have played out. The exit polls you refer to, of course, were "adjusted" after the fact to conform to the official tally, as is always done by exit pollsters who accept the official tally as the gold standard. This adjustment process proceeds throughout election night. At the start of the evening, according to Chris Matthews, they showed Obama up by 8%. Throughout the evening, his margin was adjusted downward - simply to keep matching the official results as they came in. This is a well known (some would say infamous) process, but to turn to the "adjusted" exit polls as a validation of the official tally - when in reality, the official tally has been used to "adjust" the exit polls to their present form - is simply arguing in circles. People who accept the electronic tally as unquestionably valid (and that is a faith-based decision, by the public, and by pundits and exit pollsters) are left with no choice but to advance a view of voter behaviors that is often at odds with conventional wisdom, if not common sense. For example, after the fact, one can selectively point to factors which may have motivated Clinton supporters at the last moment. Obama supporters can also point to strong anecdotal evidence of large, growing and enthusiatic crowds, and had their own dynamics. Explaining large and unexpected polling anomalies after the fact by appealing to emotional anecdotes has happened before, for example in 2002 in Georgia - even though there were also ample indications there of problems with the electronic tally. Considering the changes in American society in the last 25 years, invoking the Bradley effect may be an after-the-fact rationalization. On the face of it, precinct level data in New Hamsphire and the outcome in Iowa is also consitent with a view that the "Bradley effect" decreases when you count ballots by hand - or stand face to face in a Midwestern caucus. The problem with "faith-based" electronic voting is that if those systems are compromised, they allow the insiders who successfully evade detection to create a perception of reality in the mind of the media and electorate that becomes self-fulfilling. If you presume the electronic tally is accurate, then any "adjustment" in exit poll outcomes or rationalization of voter behaviors becomes justified, and even necessary. And, in the absence of the kind of statistically valid in-precinct hand count audit of op-scan votes I advocated last year in New Hampshire, the only indications of successful insider manipulation of voting equipment are public opinion and exit poll anomalies. My experience in the financial services industry designing countermeasures to computer fraud and embezzlement by insiders makes me less willing than some to simply dismiss those exit poll and opinion poll anomalies. Our work continues, and as I mentioned, demographic factors are one focus of our analysis. by Bruce O'Dell (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If Machines Are at Fault, You'll Have to Go Back 20 Years
Interesting. At no time in your reply to my post did you dispute the fact that the Diebold optical-scan machines in the New Hampshire primary have been in use for more than 20 years. Nor did you dispute the fact that these machines -- unlike the more controversial paperless touchscreen machines used in Ohio and other states -- are dependent on the accuracy of voters' marking of their ballot cards, which the machines are programmed to scan. It's the same principle employed by the machines that scan the answer cards of students who take their midterm and final exams. When scannable voting cards are marked, they are every bit as prone to errors by voters as the now-infamous punch cards used by voters in Florida in 2000 -- and the error rate increases exponentially with voters over 60 years of age. If you're going to come up with evidence that these machines were rigged, then you're going to have to review the results of EVERY election in New Hampshire since the mahcines were introduced in 1986. by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 1:29:52 AM (0+)
|
|
VOTER FRAUD
IF THERE IS OR WAS VOTER FRAUD WHAT GOOD DOSE IT DO TO TALK IT DEATH, NOBODY HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING, MIGHT AS WELL TALK ABOUT THE WEATHER WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT EITHER. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REALIZE THAT AS CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WE DON'T COUNT ANYMORE IN THE EYES OF OUR GOVERNMENT. A QUOTE WE ARE FAST APPROACHING THE STAGE OF THE ULTIMATE INVERSION; THE STAGE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE TO DO ANYTHING IT PLEASES, WHILE THE CITIZENS MAY ACT BY PERMISSION; WHICH IS THE STAGE OF DARKEST PERIODS OF HISTORY, THE STAGEW OF RULE BY BRUTE FORCE. RYN RAND "THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT" IS THERE ANY SIGNS OF THIS HAPPENING? YOU BE THE JUDGE. by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 5:18:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Inferences
The obvious implication here is that GOP machines will pick the weakest Dem candidate. by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:30:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Focus on anomalies
From a couple of comments on Brad Blog ... analyst said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:21 am PT... ... TruthIsAll said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:14 pm PT... Brad, the coincidence is even greater than that. The numbers match to within .0001% ! Optical Scan Hand Counted To me this implies that the entire vote counting was/is a sham --- the vote numbers appear to have been totally fabricated (a figment of somebodies very creative mind!) Couple this with the Ron Paul "Sutton" affair. There, 31 votes for Ron Paul appeared from nowhere. Let me elaborate suppose a 1000 votes were cast in Sutton So the totals reported would have been 1000 votes with Ron Paul getting 0 votes. Now that his votes were corrected to 31 votes --- did the total vote count sum to 1000 or 1031 --- where did these 31 votes come from? COMMENT #121 [Permalink] The implication of my previous comment is that it is not that easy to change and fabricate numbers without being caught. THe totals should match up with the number of voters that came in to vote. I am presuming that that record is kept seperately. If the totals do not match up, then the vote counts are suspect as I believe happened in Sutton by Bleeding Heart Liberal (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 48 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 9:56:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Sure hope your article gets some traction on the internet
So far very little mention on DU and nothing on DKos. This is extremely important evidence of fraud, especially when TIA says the inversions are identical to within .0001%. And you can't split a human in half to make it a perfect inversion. At some point you just have to say, this is no coincidence. by David Mills (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Help appreciated
It's hard to both do this work and publicize it; our team of analysts have identified specific counties to focus on and have critical demographic analysis in process. So any assistance with getting the word out is much appreciated. I'll try to be responsive to feedback in the meantime. by Bruce O'Dell (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am banned at DU and DKos so I can't post either place.
TIA is also banned both places, but we both know people who are not and I am contacting the ones I know. We both have posted this info on Progressive Independent and TIA has posted elsewhere, I think. We will try to get this out. For your information, I am the lawyer that filed a suit in TN attempting to get TN to ban paperless voting here. Unfortunately, our courts did not see it my way. But this was the kind of evidence I was missing. by David Mills (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 1:29:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Also before I found your post his morning
I found the same numbers here. But this poster did not reference you or this article. Did the two of you independently notice this phenomenon, or have many people noticed it, or do you suppose he copied you without reference? Just curious. by David Mills (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:27:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Broken link
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/01/nh-race-osce-do-consider-exit-poll.html by David Mills (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:28:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you Bruce!
to some of the comments... Well, a horse can be lead to water....... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:15:00 AM (0+)
|
|
statistics is a SCIENCE
Your bank comparison says it all. And if only they had taken your advice earlier to have failchecks in place. Maybe one good thing to come out of this will be to impliment such checks in the future. I too am a statistician and the tragedy in these matters is that statistics can accurately measure so many aspects of voting, e.g., exit poll data vs the "official" counts, but m;uch, much more than than. And, alas, the problem isn't just to get these measures (which, of couse, will probably always be data poor), it's also to get the public to take these quantative results seriously. As you say, BANKS certainly have safeguards and pay meticulous attention to mathematical/statistical data, but the public has enough trouble pronouncing the word statistics, much less understanding probabilistic resesults a major company would fail for the lack of. Sigh. I feel like I'm talking to my classes. by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (291 articles, 59 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 763 comments [44 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks - potential help?
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! As we post new findings, please feel free to review the results and provide your feedback; all statisticians are welcome. We'll just go where the numbers lead - wherever that may be - and report what we find. by Bruce O'Dell (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 3:40:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Why don't we AUDIT elections?
It seems that we only closely examine election results when the outcome is close or there are enough OBSERVABLE anomolies to raise questions. Shouldn't we just, as a matter of course, do some auditing to ensure accurate results. And do this BEFORE the results are certified. it seems like a no-brainer. Way back about 1980 I did an election system for a very large corporation to handle corporate annual meeting shareholder elections. It was impressed upon me that the system had to be transparent and auditable in case the SEC asked questions. it just seems so obvious. by Jerry Henderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Shareholders get verifiable elections
citizens don't. by David Mills (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 1:32:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Goose Stepping anyone?
by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 1:12:43 PM (0+)
|
|
analysis tool-- you be the judge
Here is a simple tool for comparing machine vs. hand-count vote ratios for each of the candidates. The report can be limited to towns producing a given range of votes (e.g. medium sized towns). by John (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:01:28 PM (0+)
|
|
What About the EDWARDS NUMBERS?? !!!!
Even the Corporate Dems are afraid of Edwards. Obviously there is someting fishy goin on with the Obama/Clinton numbers and itmust be investigated beginning with the Kucinich recount But Let's include the Edwards and Kucinich numbers also. Stop ignoring Edwards PS: LArry O'Donell is a DLC Stooge by Phred42 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 2:31:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nothing is off the table
We're focusing first on Democrats, and first on Obama-Clinton because that's where the largest apparent anomaly is. Unlike Obama and Clinton, Edwards' vote total wound up close to what was expected. But please note - in the current environment of "faith based voting" technology, all races in both parties are potentially suspect and should not necessarily be taken at face value - we're just focusing our initial effort. by Bruce O'Dell (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 3:36:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Should not the numbers be exactly as shown?
I may be dense, but it seems to me that the demographic is exactly as it should be. What I am saying is that the numbers represent the vote totals received by Hillary and Obama. They do not include votes received by other candidates. Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95% When you add the total optical scan votes for the two of them Clinton received 52.95% of the total optical scan votes cast which also represents her percentage of the total votes cast for the two of them. That of necessity leaves 47.05% for Obama. It works the same for the hand count votes except the percentages have to be the exact opposite. As I said, I may be dense, but it makes sense to me. by Spinoza (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 8:50:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Should not the numbers be exactly as shown?
The last post was my first post here and I did not see any way to edit it, so I thought I would post it again, this time correctly…I hope. I should have been a little clearer in the last post. by Spinoza (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 9:58:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here's how it works scientifically.
First -- forget the actual votes and deal solely with the percentages. The percentages are what is important, not the actual votes. Second- forget this is a single state. Think of it as two states -- NY and Calif. Then think of the election as if a million people in each state had to vote on whether they liked dogs or cats best. This takes all of the emotion and politics out of the situation. What happened in NH would be the equivalent of this: In NY 470,493 people preferred cats and 529,507 people preferred dogs. In Calif 474,494 people preferred dogs and 529,506 people preferred cats. The two states cancel each other out- perfectly. Out of two million people, in two differnt states, you might have to flip a coin to determine whether the majority liked cats or dogs best. The numbers are that close. Think about this kind of vote in real life. It would never happen. If two million people in NH had voted and one million had their votes counted on computers and a million people had their votes counted by hand, Obama and Clinton would have tied. That is a statistical impossiblity. This is what O'dell's numbers say happened. The best inference is that the computers that counted the votes had software that was designed to cancel out the votes counted by hand. by David Mills (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: David, I think you've got it
Re your conclusion that: "The best inference is that the computers that counted the votes had software that was designed to cancel out the votes counted by hand." by Bevin Gilmore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Jan 13, 2008 at 2:22:19 PM (0+)
|
|
We can "right" the optical illusion
Rocketoo: The numbers are okay. It's the names that are out of balance. If Clinton gets 91,717 of the machine tally for a leading 0.52950 percentage of that vote, she should also be the one getting the 23,509 of the hand count for a leading 0.52950 percentage of that vote. But instead, Obama received those votes. That's a perfect flip, with NO variance, as if the machines were programmed to reassign the highest value to Clinton (remember people complaining in 2000 that they pressed the touch screen for Gore but the computer kept registering it as a vote for Bush?). This is where I get dense myself, because it's not just the candidates that have separate identities. The hand count and the machine count are separate "groups," representing different precincts, with the hand count mostly rural I believe. Yet there is no variation at all in the two sets of numbers. They break perfectly even, despite the fact that some are arguing that the more municipal machine count revealed different choices because the people there are somehow different. Well, the numbers are exactly the same, which shows an homogeneity between city and rural, doesn't it? Looks like a simple flip of the names to me. Which would be consistent with the pattern of fraud we have witnessed for years: Diebold employees showing Ohio election workers how to rig the recount, massive election anomalies buried on the back pages of newspapers, burying the lead of a story, open fraudulent behavior on the part of secretaries of state, etc., pundits that analyze everything BUT the possibility of fraud or technological incompetence, seemingly ignorant as to the atrocity of privatizing the vote count, and networks that routinely change exit poll data to pass off fraudulent numbers to the public. Where the heck did they get the chutzpah to start doing THAT? I guess what I'm saying is, if all the networks engage in that level of fraud so casually, how dumb about this situation do we care to be? I have yet to fathom a simpler explanation. All this casual fraud fans the flames of more of the same, while we the public live day after day in this hell and ask why the temperature seems so hot. One thing is certain: these computer companies are the election equivalent of Blackwater: No accountability. They get to do what they want with immunity and impunity. They don't have to answer to anyone. A privatized army with a separate agenda and mission. A privatized election system with a separate agenda and mission. Two election officials in Ohio might have been convicted for fixing the recount in 2004, but what about the Diebold employees who taught them how to do it? Anyone see anyone indicting them? No, of course not. They're Blackwater. Private army. Private elections. We just get the bill. by Bevin Gilmore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 at 6:40:16 AM (0+)
|
|
The results what SHOULD have been seen....
Clinton Optical scan 81,495 47.05% If there was to be any consistency, whatsoever, in the counting, this is what should have been seen, at the end of the day.. This is STILL off of what the pollsters where posting, but it would have been a lot more believable... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Much Ado
Considering the corrected tabulations and the fact that the Obama camp has moved on, I am wondering now if perhaps we are making much ado about nothing; hoping for a tainted vote count to salve our disappointment in the results. by Spinoza (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:49:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I would agree, except...
What do we do when it happens again, say in florida? or wherever else?? by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 16, 2008 at 9:03:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Interesting but Mute discussion
Interesting discussion but mute. For the demoncratic party's processes were they apportion the delegates, both Hillary and Obama are getting the same number of delegates. The 'winning' of New Hampshire is only something for the press to talk about. As was stated in the article the biggest issue is chain of custody ...is that chain any better for the hand counters compared to the machine counters? The machines are optical readers which read a ballot filled out by hand, not sure how the hand counted ballots are processed but I would assume simular processing. The optical machines have a slot were the ballots are entered and read as they drop into a box. The hand counters probably use a similar box without the optical counter on the top. People are filling out both types of ballots by hand and are probably equally messing on both cases. On the optical ballots there was plenty of space between the boxes for the canidates (for the republical ballot at least....yes I am independant I decided that there wasn't enough difference between hillary and obama to waste my vote when I could try and get them a more respectable competitor on the republican side) so unless I had a seizures the machine would have a reasonable chance to reading my choice... it had as much of a chance of reading my choice as a human reader would have. And did I mention that the ballots are optically read which means there is nothing destructive done to them when they are read so they can be read and counted by hand if someoen would like to do so. As for all the pollsters, I was seriously considering telling them that I has a huge lists and everytime I got a call from a canidate's party I crossed them off my list. Anyone left on my list by election day would be eligible for my vote. by Robert A. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:54:05 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
