Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Was the New Hampshire Primary Stolen on Behalf of Hillary?

By David Griscom  Posted by David Griscom (about the submitter)       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   16 comments
Message David Griscom

Many election-integrity activists with good mathematical intuitions looked at the returns and exclaimed, “That just couldn’t have happened by accident.” What they were speaking of, of course, was the fact that Barack Obama led Hillary Clinton by 53.25% to 46.75% in the 35,864 votes cast for one or the other of them on hand-counted paper ballots (HCPBs), whereas he lost to her by 47.27% to 52.73% of the 81,753 computer-counted votes cast for one or the other of them on optical scanners (op-scans).

Since it has been so thoroughly demonstrated that the 1.94w memory cards on the op-scans and the GEMS central tabulator are easily hacked (for example, ), it looked to be an open-and-shut case that that was exactly what had happened.

But this well justified suspicion (besides being ignored by the main stream media) was instantly discounted in a cacophony of unsupported arguments advanced by the stolen-election denier community well as by some election-integrity activists fearing their cause will be discredited in the event that any of their arguments should ever be proven wrong. So the deniers get a free pass, while the hard working election-fraud sleuths feel they have to hold their tongues.

By contrast, there is no such “asymmetric warfare” in the world of science. All scientists make errors, but their principal concern lies, not with shielding themselves from embarrassment, but instead with advancing of science. So, whenever a given scientific problem proves too complicated to solve in one fell swoop, scientists “bravely” look for new ways to simplify the problem to the point where mathematics will give at least approximately-correct answers almost all of the time.

Here’s the classic example: In the early days of quantum mechanics (which, by the way, is 100% based on statistics) it proved absolutely intractable to calculate the quantum-mechanical behaviors of even small molecules. So in 1927 Max Born and J. Robert Oppenheimer published a paper proposing that, since electrons move so much faster than atomic nuclei, it might be useful to perform calculations that assume (for the sake of actually being able to do any calculations at all) that all nuclei are absolutely stationary. Absurd? Absolutely not! The “Born-Oppenheimer approximation” has proved its extreme usefulness for fully 80 years!

While I’m not a Born or an Oppenheimer, I am an accomplished physicist ( ). So, what should I care if anyone should nit-pick the assumption I found necessary – and appropriate – for purposes of calculating the probability that the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest in New Hampshire was honest?

Here’s what I know to be true (no assumptions yet): The boundaries between the HCPB precincts and the op-scan precincts in New Hampshire were laid out years ago by individuals who could not possibly have foreseen the Obama-Clinton contest of 8 January 2008. If they had had anything devious in mind, surely it would have been to give some advantage to Democrats or Republicans (depending on the sympathies of the deciders) in the General Election.

Therefore, I assume that, from the standpoint of the Obama-Clinton primary contest, these boundaries were chosen randomly.

Shades of Born-Oppenheimer. Under this modest assumption, instructive results can be obtained by proper application of statistics. And when I did perform the appropriate Binomial Statistical calculations, the results I got for the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest were absolutely stunning – perhaps they will stand as the all-time record for the degree of “statistical impossibility” of any putatively accidental election anomaly! ( )

In other words, I find 100% probability that the op-scan tallies were hacked!

So my challenge to all election-theft deniers is this: Prove me wrong! Give me your best shot. But please sign your proofs with your real name ...and don’t fail to append your scientific/mathematical credentials.

Rate It | View Ratings

David Griscom Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society. Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Fellow, American Ceramic Society. Research Physicist at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC, (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Passing judgment on HR 811: A classic case of "the blind men and the elephant"

Credit Default Swaps: The "Gordian Knot" Standing in the Way of Economic Recovery

Mr. Obama, Fire Geithner & Hire Krugman NOW!

The (Non) Results of Monday Morning's Superior Court Hearing in Pima County, AZ

The Folks Who Brought You this Financial Meltdown Are Still at the Helm

Taxpayers Arise! The True Meaning of Cramer-vs.-Stewart Debate

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend