And they are 100% correct about this. But only when there is no citizen oversight. And the only time this happens in a hand count election is in a recount.
In the Election Night count, the first count, the count that matters, all hand count elections have complete citizen oversight as a check against the kind of corrupt outcome you would find in a ballot swapping affair. But in a recount, there is absolutely no citizen oversight for the entire time between Election Night and the recount itself.
If we are going to assume the possibility that some nefarious super spy has bothered to rig a New Hampshire election, wouldn’t we assume they have also taken into account our liberal recount laws? Wouldn’t we assume they might have a Plan B to ensure a recount validates their nefarious doings? Is it at all logical that evildoers who find their way into our machine counts might not also find a way into our recounts?
Open and honest elections require citizen oversight. This is a simple thing to accomplish in a hand count Election Night count. But in a recount it is impossible.
In a recount, citizens have no control over the ballot chain of custody. Unless citizens have stood guard over every ballot box from the moment that it was sealed and signed by our local election officials, the recount provides no more assurance than the machine counts. A recount of a secret computerized vote count is just another weak link in the chain of publicly observable ballot custody required for honest and open elections.
In 2004, on request from citizen activists, candidate Ralph Nader had a New Hampshire recount. Only 11 districts, chosen by a mysterious out of state activist, claiming to be a statistician who had found anomalies in the results, were recounted. New Hampshire officials at the time disagreed with her interpretation but the recount occurred as she directed. To nobody’s surprise, the recounts uncovered no significant discrepancies, and New Hampshire’s system of corporate controlled secret vote counting got a big stamp of approval.
And here we are again. Another corporate controlled New Hampshire election. Another questionable outcome. Did the Nader recount change things for the better? Did it resolve the problem?
If New Hampshire conducts a recount now, it’s as reasonable as not to assume this recount will again not reveal any significant discrepancies. Our corporate controlled secret vote count elections will be validated, and we will continue to have elections whose outcomes can not be trusted.
It is time for real accountability and change. We get this not from a recount, but from an investigation. We need questions asked and answered, and changes made so we have a clean election in the Granite State in November 2008, and in every election thereafter.
The first question that needs to be asked is: Why did the NH Ballot Law Commission approve this voting equipment in March 2006 when the vendor himself testified it was defective and after citizens testified for more than four hours against the approval?
Second question: Why did the State not respond to citizen requests for a rehearing after California decertified the same equipment we are using in New Hampshire?
Third question: Why has every citizen request for risk mitigation through reasonable procedural changes and legislation been ignored or obstructed by the State?
Fourth question: Why did the legislature, in two separate sessions under both Republican and Democratic majority, kill legislation that called for full software disclosure for voting equipment?
Fifth question: Why did the legislature kill a bill calling for voting machine approval only if those machines can guarantee the integrity of election results?
Sixth question: Why did the legislature kill a bill calling for election night parallel hand count of a percent of ballots to check and balance against the machine count? Why did the State refuse to make this a recommended procedure for every machine count polling place?
Seventh question: Why did the State do nothing after hearing testimony from internationally recognized computer security experts suggesting recommendations for risk mitigation procedures?
In the Election Night count, the first count, the count that matters, all hand count elections have complete citizen oversight as a check against the kind of corrupt outcome you would find in a ballot swapping affair. But in a recount, there is absolutely no citizen oversight for the entire time between Election Night and the recount itself.
If we are going to assume the possibility that some nefarious super spy has bothered to rig a New Hampshire election, wouldn’t we assume they have also taken into account our liberal recount laws? Wouldn’t we assume they might have a Plan B to ensure a recount validates their nefarious doings? Is it at all logical that evildoers who find their way into our machine counts might not also find a way into our recounts?
Open and honest elections require citizen oversight. This is a simple thing to accomplish in a hand count Election Night count. But in a recount it is impossible.
In 2004, on request from citizen activists, candidate Ralph Nader had a New Hampshire recount. Only 11 districts, chosen by a mysterious out of state activist, claiming to be a statistician who had found anomalies in the results, were recounted. New Hampshire officials at the time disagreed with her interpretation but the recount occurred as she directed. To nobody’s surprise, the recounts uncovered no significant discrepancies, and New Hampshire’s system of corporate controlled secret vote counting got a big stamp of approval.
And here we are again. Another corporate controlled New Hampshire election. Another questionable outcome. Did the Nader recount change things for the better? Did it resolve the problem?
If New Hampshire conducts a recount now, it’s as reasonable as not to assume this recount will again not reveal any significant discrepancies. Our corporate controlled secret vote count elections will be validated, and we will continue to have elections whose outcomes can not be trusted.
It is time for real accountability and change. We get this not from a recount, but from an investigation. We need questions asked and answered, and changes made so we have a clean election in the Granite State in November 2008, and in every election thereafter.
The first question that needs to be asked is: Why did the NH Ballot Law Commission approve this voting equipment in March 2006 when the vendor himself testified it was defective and after citizens testified for more than four hours against the approval?
Second question: Why did the State not respond to citizen requests for a rehearing after California decertified the same equipment we are using in New Hampshire?
Third question: Why has every citizen request for risk mitigation through reasonable procedural changes and legislation been ignored or obstructed by the State?
Fourth question: Why did the legislature, in two separate sessions under both Republican and Democratic majority, kill legislation that called for full software disclosure for voting equipment?
Fifth question: Why did the legislature kill a bill calling for voting machine approval only if those machines can guarantee the integrity of election results?
Sixth question: Why did the legislature kill a bill calling for election night parallel hand count of a percent of ballots to check and balance against the machine count? Why did the State refuse to make this a recommended procedure for every machine count polling place?
Seventh question: Why did the State do nothing after hearing testimony from internationally recognized computer security experts suggesting recommendations for risk mitigation procedures?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
