Numbers from New Hampshire

[AndrewClarke]

All I've seen after Nader's partial recount ended was that there was "little change." The closest I've seen to an accounting of the numbers was this: "The largest gain for a presidential candidate has been nearly 25 votes, but gains of 10 votes or fewer have been more common. When one major-party candidate gained, the other also tended to gain."

Has anyone seen the actual numbers?

Officially, it doesn't matter, because I remember reading that the recounted numbers would not be included with the original results unless there was a statewide recount. But I'm still curious. Can anyone enlighten me?

[righteous1]

1. Ended up Kerry picked up 60 additional votes

Bush picked up 80

[AndrewClarke]

3. Where did you see that?

Do you also have a breakdown by ward? Thanks.

[righteous1]

5. Read it in a NH newspaper article i believe on Thursday

I'll see if i cant find it and post the link

[AndrewClarke]

6. Thanks . . .

I've been searching Google News since the recount ended, to no avail.

[berniew1]

7. This was strange state to do recount in; Kerry won & nothing in dispute

This was strange state to do recount in; Kerry won & nothing in dispute that I'm aware of. Anyone know the the 11 precincts recounted were chosen?
Was it based on someones analysis that showed unusual pattern for those precincts?

[righteous1]

9. The main reason that they picked

this state was because of the large differences between exit poll and election night vote tallys ie. NH 11% FL 6% OH 4%

[Harlan James]

2. I'm A Little Confused On The Recount Thing

If Bush's handlers rigged the Diebold (etc) vote, aren't we just cheering on the recounting of the same old illegitimate numbers?

The really problem, it seems to me, doesn't lie with recounting the numbers, it lies with the numbers themselves.

I honestly don't see how recounting will mean all that much. Kind of a wank, actually. What we need to do is get the courts to order the seizure of all Diebold (etc) records and communications regarding the 2004 election.

[IdaBriggs]

4. New Hampshire has a paper trail.

The equipment is optical scan, and the original (paper) ballots were hand counted. *If* there is fraud in New Hampshire, it does not appear to be at the machine level, or folks went to an unbelievable amount of trouble to cover it up. :) Best, Ida

[ramblin_dave]

8. At the machine level?

If the hand count is very close to the original machine count, then where could fraud have occurred?

It's possuble, I suppose, that the hand counted ballots were tampered with - added, subtracted, marked up, etc. This is a chain of custody issue and would seem to involve a lot of people to pull off.

Fraud at the machine level would make sense for DREs with no paper trail since software or wireless interfaces could theoretically be used to modify a voter's choices without detection. But what would machine level fraud be for optical scan?

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Some of the fraud is in the absentee ballots

that's where people should look. Absentee ballots plus the inactive voter lists is where the REPs focused a lot of attention.