|
|
Tags for This Article:
Electronic Voting (2782) Voting Integrity (2442) Voting Technology (1682) Democracy (1648) 2008 Election Presidential (908) Barack Obama (818) Corporations E-Voting (523) New Hampshire (335) Polls (306) Hillary Clinton (259) Optical Scan Voting Machines (111) Ron Paul (67) Primary Interference (33)
|
Group(s): Benicia Progressives Add to My Group
“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:
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:
Nancy Tobi, of Democracy for New Hampshire, notes in an email:
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?
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers http://www.re-mediaetc.org/ In 2004, Rady Ananda began contributing to the Web, as part of the growing community of citizen journalists. Focusing mainly on elections, her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She currently serves as a senior editor at OpEdNews. All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link. "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." ~ Noam Chomsky http://www.wisdomquotes.com/001925.html
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
