 |
|
Group(s): Benicia ProgressivesAdd to My Group
|
January 9, 2008 at 23:17:03
Inherent Uncertainty and NH's Primary Results by Rady Ananda Page 1 of 2 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
“I don’t trust in your statistics; I ain’t got no crystal ball. If I had a million dollars, well, I’d, I’d spend it all to Hand Count Paper Ballots. Toss those vote machines away. Pay my neighbors to guard the ballot box all day…” Santeria Ballots (with much apology to Sublime). Blogs are bursting over the fact that ALL the major pollsters, including Hillary’s and Barack’s internal polling, had Obama winning New Hampshire’s presidential primary election. Yet in a surreal recurring nightmare, official results say otherwise. Votes that are recorded and counted in secret only and always produce inherent uncertainty. There’s no way around it. It’s why election experts from around the globe, when describing democratic elections, call for a secret vote and a transparent vote count. 
Specifically as to vote counting, Goodwin-Gill notes in Free and Fair Elections, “votes are tallied in a process that inspires confidence in the electorate.” (p.152) But with an ever-expanding mountain of scientific condemnation of software-driven election systems, there is no basis for confidence in results from software-driven machines.
Because 1/5 of New Hampshire’s ballots are counted by hand, we can compare results from hand-counted precincts with computerized results. Lori Price, of Citizens for Legitimate Government, produced that comparison, which shows that in hand-counted precincts, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton 39-35%. Ron Paul’s War Room is questioning the results in this 6-minute video, asking for a hand count.
Bob Koehler (Tribune Media Services) writes:
The fact is, whatever actually happened in New Hampshire voting booths on Tuesday, our elections are horrifically insecure. For instance, Bev Harris, of the highly respected voting watchdog organization Black Box Voting, recently wrote that the Diebold 1.94w optical scan machines used by 80% of New Hampshire’s voters are "the exact same make, model and version hacked in the Black Box Voting project in Leon County (Florida)" a few years ago. They haven't been upgraded; the security problems haven't been fixed.
This 10-minute video shows LHS’s president lying about the fixes to these optical scans, and it shows how easily optical scan machines can thwart the authentic vote.
Bev Harris reports:
LHS Associates programs every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. But did state officials in five New England states ever do a criminal background check on this company's executives? Do the laws of these five states even ALLOW them to hire convicted criminals for services paid for by the state? What about over 500 local towns and municipalities?
According to my sources, LHS Marketing and Sales Director Kenneth Hajjar … pled guilty to "sale / CND" and was sentenced to 12 months in the Rockingham County Correctional facility, and fined $2000. As things go for the politically connected, he was then given a deferred sentence and $1000 of his fine was suspended.
Hajjar doesn't limit his involvement in the voting machine business to sales. According to an interview conducted by Brad Friedman, Hajjar totes memory cards around in the trunk of his car and defends the boggling concept of swapping out memory cards during the middle of elections.
Nancy Tobi, of Democracy for New Hampshire, notes in an email:
We do have a lot of questions. But we will never have answers as long as we have privatized secret vote counting. The questions are out there and maybe eventually will cause enough people to want to stop asking the questions and get rid of corporate-run elections.
Why do the powers-that-be insist we use hackable voting machines? When experts tell us that optical scan systems are just as hackable as touch-screen systems, why is anyone using either? Why invoke inherent uncertainty in reported results?
1 | 2
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
All voting machines should be banned from public elections. Given all the scientific evidence condemning computerized voting systems; given all the
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
more...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 |
|
|
|
|
| 9 comments |
|
YES!
Well done Rady. More to come... by Dave Berman (54 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 49 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:04:14 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Got one on NH?
I think I continue to fall prey to the inherent uncertainty set up the elites, which you explained so well last nite. If you have an article on NH, I'm compiling an expanded list starting with Rob and Joan have done. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:16:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Let's have a recount
For all of us who are interested in a recount, there seems to be a real possibility of one. There were 42 candidates on the Dem + Rep ballots and any one of them can request a recount. It seems like Albert Howard, one of those 42, is inclined to do so. If we can contact him and offer to raise the money for recount, he will likely request an official recount. Our chance is now. See below for the news story about him. "It was back to reality for presidential candidate Albert Howard of Ann Arbor, back behind the wheel of his Checker cab waiting for passengers at Detroit Metro Airport. The father of eight savored his 40 votes in the New Hampshire presidential GOP primary. Howard was among 42 also-rans who paid $1,000 to get on the New Hampshire ballot, and he was something of a celebrity, interviewed by Time magazine, the New York Times, Boston Globe and the nightly ABC News. At one point, his vote total climbed to 178, then dropped. He is asking the New Hampshire Secretary of State for a recount. Howard said he was in awe that even 40 people picked him." by Anon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 3:14:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mixed reviews on the recount idea
thanks, Anon, for posting this. I've got my ear to the ground and there is a debate right now about whether or not to pursue a recount, a full scale investigation (citizen-run, not government-run), and other ideas. I'll post more as I learn the particulars. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:19:43 PM (0+)
|
|
excellent!
very good job tying things together. i like your basic premise - inherent uncertainty- as a non-starter for our elections. makes sense to me. thanks. by Joan Brunwasser (206 articles, 3757 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 751 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 7:11:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fantabulous Idea to BLAST THE BLOGOSPHERE
and our Congress and local newspapers... you and Rob really pulled this off in a dramatically successful way. I'm collecting the essays you posted and expanding it, and will sent the whole ball of wax to my lists. That inherent uncertainty frame - I was whining to PeopleCount about you asking us to write about NH's primary. I said, "We've got a lot of questions and no answers." When Nancy Tobi responded with "We do have a lot of questions. But we will never have answers as long as we have privatized secret vote counting," it finally hit me. That's exactly the point. Then I suddenly understood, clearly, what Dave Berman's been talking about. Elites are deliberately setting us up with inherent uncertainty so that "facts" devolve into opinions. But, scientifcally, there are a discrete number of ballots, which allows us to have a conclusive outcome - one that is not subject to debate or opinion. Different groups of people can count them and, if done honestly and accurately, all will arrive at the same totals. When you watch Leon County Election Supervisor Ion Sanchez (in this video) clearly show how optical scan tabulators can be hacked, we must reject their use in public elections. ENOUGH! I like EDA's I-Count idea... that is the way to go. Show up, America. It only takes 6-8 people per precinct to count your neighbor's votes in 5-6 hours. Often less. Thanks for all you do, Joan... what a ride this has been, eh? by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:30:04 PM (0+)
|
|
If voting could change things ...
they'd make it illegal by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 9:45:29 AM (0+)
|
|
Couldn't do this work without you
Once again Rady pulls it all together with the supporting documentation and crystal clarity-- sifting through the density of the overwhelming information and focusing a beam on what must be done. I personally could not do the election integrity work I do without her. And since anyone following this work understands that it is only WE the people who can be counted on to count our votes accurately and transparently- we must create a huge citizen volunteer army to do just that. Just think if tens of thousands of us were ready to be deployed on election day- into the fields to count the ballots by hand and perhaps conduct citizen exit polls. What if we showed up in droves and said, 'We're here to count-- get that machine out of my way'. We need to be organized and mobilized to do what's necessary to guard our ballots, which is why Election Defense Alliance is proposing a national registry of citizen volunteers willing to show up and count. see THE "I COUNT CORPS" -- Sign up to take back our elections http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andi_nov_080110_sign_up_to_take_back.htm by andi novick (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I COUNT - Great Project Idea
and thanks for all you do, Andi ~ and Joan and Dave and the other 25 authors I have collected who wrote just about New Hampshire. I'm compiling a list of articles - which Rob Kall and Joan Brunwasser started with their wonderful idea to blast the blogosphere, and Congress, and the mainstream lamestream press... thank you so much, Andi, for pulling together that incredibly diverse group of people to file the amicus brief in US vs. NY. you're my latest hero... :-) by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:15:01 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 |
