Request For NH Recount Granted

By Wednesday morning, stories were flying all around the Internet--have you looked closely at the results of the primary? There was something strange about the votes, they said, about the difference between municipalities that hand-counted votes and those that used optical scanners. The chatter increased, and by Friday, the New Hampshire Department of State issued a press release announcing that two candidates, Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Albert Howard had requested and been granted a recount, having met the following requirement:

"New Hampshire law, RSA 660:7, provides that "any person for whom a vote was cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may apply for a recount." RSA 660:2, IV provides that if the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees provided in RSA 660:2, III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional costs of the recount." RSA 660:6 provides that if the person requesting the recount is declared the winner after the recount or loses by a margin of less than one percent of the total votes cast, the fees for the recount will be refunded by the State."

The recounts will begin on January 16, at a time and location to be announced after the state has completed an estimate of the cost and received payment based on that estimate.

The questions revolve around the AccuVote optical scanning system, used by 111 of New Hampshire's municipalities. The scanner, made by Premier Election Systems (formerly Diebold) was one of the machines analyzed by the Ohio Secretary of State's office in a recent review of the voting systems used in that state. The reviewers, a mix of academics and corporate computer security experts, described how the AccuVote works:

"When a voter arrives at a polling place to vote, he or she marks an optical scan ballot with a marking device, such as a pen or pencil. When finished, the voter inserts the ballot into the AV-OS optical scan machine. The voter is given the chance to reject and retrieve the ballot (such as in the case of an overvote) or to accept the ballot as voted. The ballots move from the scanner to a locked box in the base of the scanner. After the polling place closes, poll workers print an election summary off of the AV-OS. Poll workers transfer the AV-OS memory card, defined below, to the board of elections office for vote tabulating using EMPs and/or the GEMS server."

The Ohio reviewers found numerous problems with all aspects of the Premier machines, more so with the DRE model (direct-recording electronic, or touchscreen), but with the optical scanner as well. The servers are easily hackable and the memory cards used in the machines are also susceptible to tampering. Speaking specifically about the scanner, they noted that a ballot could be sent through the machine more than once without any red flags being raised. In addition to purposeful attacks, optical scanners can be affected by other ills--the type of paper or ink could cause a ballot to be scanned poorly or a machine can be miscalibrated, resulting in an incorrect reading of the ballot information it's been given.

ChecktheVotes is one of the websites that sprung up last week, parsing the primary numbers, specifically the difference between the hand-counted and machine-counted votes (the site, created by a Ron Paul supporter, was originally called www.ronrox.com, but the name was changed once it began to receive thousands of visitors). Using numbers from Politico, the site compares the percentage of the overall vote a candidate received by machine counts vs. the percentage received from hand counts. For example, according to the numbers on the site, John McCain received 36.419% of the total votes counted by machine and 39.303% of the total votes counted by hand. This results in a presumed "loss" of 2.884% of the from the machine count.

Obviously, Mr. McCain isn't complaining or asking for a recount. But the site points out other similar losses and gains: Mitt Romney "gained" votes from the machine count, as did Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama showed a "loss" from machine counted votes.

The question, though, is whether these differences mean anything. Is there any reason why the hand-count and the machine count should be exactly the same? The large towns in New Hampshire generally use the AccuVote machine, while the small towns use hand-counts. It would seem that voters in small towns and voters in large towns might have very different concerns, with candidates that appeal in large population centers failing in small towns. Look at the Romney example. Romney did better overall with the machine count vote than he did with the hand count. Was that due to someone hacking the vote in Romney's favor? Did the majority of the machines suffer malfunctions that gave him extra votes? Or was it more about the candidate and the demographics? It's not a huge leap to think that Romney's big business image just didn't play well in small towns, leading to his poor results in the hand counts.

The picture is initially less clear with Clinton and Obama. Looking at the vote town by town, Clinton decidedly won more of those that used AccuVote, winning 66 of these municipalities to Obama's 45. Obama won more of the hand-counts, taking 83 towns to Clinton's 39. In fact, their voting percentages were almost exactly reversed: Clinton won 46% of the hand-count vote to Obama's 54%. Out of the machine counts, Clinton took 53% while Obama won 48%.

Neither candidate is as easily slotted "big city" or "small town" the way we can categorize Romney. However, Ed Morrissey of the Captain's Quarters blog noted last week that this fits with pre-vote trends--Clinton was leading in big cities, which tended to use voting machines, while Obama had been polling better in small towns, where hand-counts were prevalent.

Looking at those numbers for Obama and Clinton, you could argue that the Clinton camp would have just as good a case for complaint against the hand- counting process as Obama would against the machine votes (though, remember, neither of these candidates actually filed the complaint--which, considering the Obama campaign has a lot more money and a lot more to gain than Kucinich, may say something about the whole question). After all, hand-counted votes also can be miscounted and misplaced; they can be made to "disappear."

And therein lies the whole issue. The demand for a recount isn't about the New Hampshire primary--anything short of a result showing Obama winning by more than say, 5% would still put the vote within the realm of a Clinton "comeback" from Iowa. It's about the amount of distrust that voters have in the machine voting systems--machines which studies have shown to be not just hackable, but often poorly conceived and constructed. People who conduct business over cell phones, computers, and ATMs are nervous about electronic voting because they feel that something about the whole process has gone amiss; the voting machines' source codes are proprietary to the companies so any flaws remain hidden except when extensive studies, such as those conducted by Ohio and California are done. Many states bought the systems quickly after the Help America Vote Act of 2002 made electronic voting mandatory, investing millions of dollars in e-voting and finding out about problems afterward. The EAC's oversight of HAVA has been questionable; until recently, the machines' manufacturers selected the labs that tested their voting systems.

Fraudulent voting can occur in a number of ways. There may be bad people counting; there may be bad machines counting. The New Hampshire recount probably won't reveal any widespread acts of coordinated malfeasance, but it's not wrong to double check the process. After all, as Stalin said: "The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."

Or the machines.

Comments

[TruthBeHeard]

If you are really concerned about legit voting, go to blackboxvoting.org. If you can't help out in person, give them a few bucks to help with travel and expenses. They are very frugal and do a lot on a little.
BlackBoxVoting.org and BradBlog.com are the only ones that I know of who are trying their best to research problems, either with machines(voting or scanning)or with chain of custody etc. For example, some NH vote storage boxes had slits in them and they were "sealed" with post-it type tape. Some of the disks were even returned to the vote machine company, instead of being kept with the paper ballots.
So... if you can help out in person, BlackBoxVoting needs experienced bodies on the ground. If you can't help in person, just throw a few bucks their way!

[heyletsevolve]

In no other way than voting do Americans show themselves more to be sheep, blind ignorant and trusting sheep.

Reading these posts it's heartening to see so many people finally waking up.

But please be clear and logical, people. Early voting and mail in voting are NOT good methods. Any time the ballots are sitting around for days or weeks is an opportunity for fraud.

Ballots must be cast and counted at the precinct on election day, all at once, in front of as many people as possible. Filming the vote counting, having it shown live on TV and the Internet, would make a lot of sense.

[heyletsevolve]

I've been involved in the vote reform movement for decades, and the truth is that widespread vote fraud has been taking place for much longer than Americans realize.

Vote fraud really only became an public hot issue with the 2000 election, the Supreme Court ruling, hanging chads, etc.

If you do your homework, you'll find out that evidence of widespread votefraud involving the use of machines and computers has been compiled by citizens for decades.

And it isn't just a Republican effort. A core fact that emerges from all this is that the Republicans and Democrats may be enemies, but when it comes to keeping any viable independent or third party candidate locked out of the system, the two parties work in lock step.

They are aided and abetted by the mainstream media. This has been understood for decades by some, and you can see it playing out now with NBC's desperate and open attempts to keep Kucinich out of the debates.

If Americans understood the power structure in their own country and how cancerous it really is, they could easily restore democracy by taking the elections process out of the hands of the huge coporations and the corporate media.

[heyletsevolve]

I wonder who has been in custody of these paper ballots since in the election, and how we can be sure they haven't been tampered with as well.

It's true that paper voting is subject to problems, but the point is that at least those problems can be caught and dealt with.

With the computer, the vote count is done is secret, which is illegal and unconstitutional. And any malfeasance cannot be detected. Elections that are close -- which ours almost always are according to the polls (whether we believe them or not) -- can be manipulated by small margins.

Perhaps the 2006 elections were rigged widely by the Republican controlled voting machines. Perhaps the Democrats won by huge margins, and in fact should be controlling far more seats in Congress. We will never know.

[JJinWI]

I do not know where to begin with all of this so I will just lay out the basic facts as they are being reported to me:

1. The state of New Hampshire ballot appeared to have been tampered with.
2. The people of America (and about half of the world too!) pulled together to sign a petition and have their voice heard, across the aisle, in an effort that has seen both Democrats and Republicans call for a recount of the ballots for the state of New Hampshire.
3. The Secretary of State placed a January 15th @ 15:00 deadline for the $55,600 to be handed over to cover the cost of the recount.
4. The money was raised by, again, people from all walks of life who simply wanted to see that every vote was counted.
5. At the very last moment, PayPal froze the Granny Warriors account and refused to release the funds whilst they “investigated” a “suspicious” $1000 donation.
6. The money could not be handed over and thus, at this point in time, it appears that the recount will NOT take place.

[JJinWI]

continued...

So, the following is what we are meant to believe:

1. PayPal have clearly not been paying ANY attention to what has been happening during this campaign and thus have no idea how quickly and in what amounts the Ron Paul Revolution is able to raise funds.
2. PayPal were clearly unaware that Ron Paul supporters were in the majority of those donating to this effort and would likely break the target REGARDLESS of what last minute donations were required.
3. PayPal were so unlucky during the four days that this appeal ran that they managed to:
1. Crash the original ChipIn at least 3 times making it impossible during this time to donate any money at all.
2. Destroy the original ChipIn altogether after around $40,000 had been donated requiring the Granny Warriors to start a new ChipIn for the remaining monies.
3. Crash the new ChipIn for about 2 hours on and off on the final fundraising date.
4. Stop the recount by denying that all and any funds received are now frozen (note: NOT just the $1000 which, by this point, was no longer needed as we were over the top by then) pending an investigation into where a perfectly decent sized donation came from.
4. The Secretary of State is unable to stretch the deadline or accept that said funds exist regardless of the amount of documented evidence placed on his desk.
5. This entirely calamitous and accidental chain of events was, at no point whatsoever, manipulated by anybody to ensure that this recount never took place.

[coatesmoe]

What does one have to do to get a fair election in the land of the brave and free? Does one have to wait until the people come out on the streets and start hanging the politicians from the lamp post? Bush showed us with such arrogance that he did not car and his brother Jeb stood there and looked in the other direction. These people are just like Bubba Clinton and waiting until someone cuts them down.

[nomorebombs]

mandatory voting..as in socialistic belgium where there is health care for all...

[PigLipstick]

You want fair elections, pass a uniform voting system law for all 50 states. Until a law like that is in place, you will continue to have corruption in the voting process.

I can only ask one question of most Americans today, how can we continue to conduct debit and credit transactions every day when we can't even cast a reliable vote for one of two people every two to four years ? How can Mastercard send millions of dollars in transactions around the world every day yet we can't hold an honest election for the local dog catcher.

Tradition preserves many charming stories about the past but continuing to adhere to a two hundred year old election system makes a travesty of our Democracy. We are currently seeing the results of this unbreakable link to the past on our Democracy as the average citizen can't even find the time to vote because they think the current electorial process is a sham. In the meantime, those corrupt individuals who continue to support the status quo and run roughshod over our political system make a mockery of our Democratic process.

[EileenMac]

FYI: Many YouTube Videos discussing this "problem", ALL of these were posted BEFORE New Hampshire Primary. Even Fox News got into the act in 2006. Go to YouTube, search BLACKBOX VOTING, or check these out:

Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws, posted in September 2006

Fox News Exposes Princeton/Diebold Reversal Story posted September 16, 2006

Silvestro The Cat/Exposing NH Voting, January 7, 2008

[Hansharriet]

It has been shown over and over that machine voting, especially when using voting machines manufactured by Diebold, are not dependable and can be tampered with. There must be a paper trail for any vote. More power to Kucinich who is trying to clean up this mess.

[websmith]

If numbers on the NH Secretary of State Primary results web page keep changing. At last count, Obama had beaten Hillary with a Democratic turnout that was embarrassing and nothing to celebrate.

Hopefully. we'll get the real numbers and find out who won before the election is over,this is not a sign of things to come, and it's just an example of incompetence.

[ERose]

What amazes me most is how the black box voting issue seems to melt away and remain unexamined, even unquestioned between elections!!! Talk about short-term memory loss. Even the leftie blogs drone on and on about possibilities and change....­completely ignoring how easy it was for two presidential elections to be hijacked. We know we're not going to hear more than a short blurb about mis-counts and electronic voting malfeasance from MSM...after all, ultimately their corporate owners are the power behind the throne.

Have we not had ample reasons to doubt the electronic voting system? I contend that in the years between elections, and especially during these next months leading up to the most important vote we've ever had in the US, the nefarious black box manipulators have been (and will continue to be) very busy, and are now poised to tweak votes just enough here and there to ensure no true candidate of the People will be on the November ballot.

My state's primary is not until May, we have a mail-in ballot, no machines on the user end anyway. Just the same, I do photcopy my ballot. Makes me feel better about my vote, but probably signifies nothing. I hope that John Edwards survives till May 20. He's the only one with the intelligence & fire, grace and compassion for the job. And he's the only one unpolluted by PAC contributions. It's unfortunate that the people most hurt by 8 years of corruption and greed, those who need Edwards the most, have the least to contribute to his campaign. But if you've got a few dollars....

[boyfood]

you're close with your Stalin quotation, but isn't more like "those who cast votes don't matter, those who count the votes do" ?

[YEShavesome]

Kucinich elevates this from a cat fight to a debate just by walking onstage!
The man is integrity incarnate!

Michigan voters listen up - your write-in votes WILL NOT count! None of the candidates not listed on the ballot registered for write-in status.
Only Kucinich, Clinton And Gravel will be on your ballot.

Q: The ballot gives me the option of marking my ballot "uncommitted." If I do that, what does that mean?
A: You are voting to send delegates to the national convention that will not be committed to vote for any particular candidate. Uncommitted delegates usually end up voting for the eventual nominee at the convention.

A vote for Kucinich is a vote against corporate control of your media AND
your voting process! Thanks, Michigan - The ball is in your court.

And a special thanks to Clark County, Nevada's Judge Charles Thompson!

Down with Corporate Media censorship!!!!