OpEdNews Op Eds

Inherent Uncertainty and NH's Primary Results

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

“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?

Next Page  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

In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Initially focused on elections, she investigated the 2004 Ohio election, organizing, training and leading several forays into counties to photograph the 2004 ballots. She officially served at three recounts, including the 2004 recount. She also organized and led the team that audited Franklin County Ohio's 2006 election, proving the number of voter signatures did not match official results. Her work appears in three books.

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 spent most of her working life as a researcher or investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor.

She graduated from The Ohio State University's School of Agriculture in December 2003 with a B.S. in Natural Resources.

All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Tell the truth anyway.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

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.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Well done Rady.  More to come...... by Dave Berman on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:04:14 AM
I think I continue to fall prey to the inherent un... by Rady Ananda on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:16:53 PM
For all of us who are interested in a recount, the... by Anon on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 3:14:12 AM
thanks, Anon, for posting this. I've got my ea... by Rady Ananda on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:19:43 PM
very good job tying things together.  i like ... by Joan Brunwasser on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 7:11:36 AM
and our Congress and local newspapers... you and R... by Rady Ananda on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:30:04 PM
they'd make it illegal... by Mr M on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 9:45:29 AM
 Once again Rady pulls it all together with t... by andi novick on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM
and thanks for all you do, Andi ~ and Joan and Dav... by Rady Ananda on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 8:15:01 PM

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum