About the NH votes ....(Important)

[lala_rawraw]

Guys, I have not endorsed or discussed a candidate publicly. So this is not me whining about "my candidate" losing or something of that sort. I have yet to publicly make any statement about any candidate on the Democratic side and I would urge you to try and prove otherwise and not just take my word for it.

So when I say I have serious concerns about the difference in returns vs. polling, I am not doing so in support for any candidate. We here have long argued against the use of Diebold machines and with good reason. We here have long demanded that no matter who the winner of any election is, that elections simply be fair. Yet faced with the ultimate test of having to ask that question when it goes against our personal interests, we have not acted consistent with our position.

There are real and serious issues in NH and the strange results delivered by machines we have long argued are not acceptable. Yet, these very same Diebold machines are now being argued by one side as delivering a solid win and people who ask questions are being attacked with the "sour grapes" line. Does that attack not sound familiar when we asked those same questions about the 2004 election? If we take this route, are we not becoming the very thing we have so long worked to stop?

There are a few people, I won't name names, who have been exceptionally psychotic about their own candidate and there has been very serious infighting because of that. But step away from your own interests and your own chosen candidate for a moment, and simply look at the issue. Ask yourself, does it matter that we have fair elections? If the answer is yes, then your own support of a particular candidate becomes secondary.

As I have said, I have not made any comments endorsing any candidate or any comments to detract from the qualities of any candidates. My interest is in fair and honest elections. I do not believe that what we witnessed in NH is fair and honest. I don't know why the results are the way that they are and I don't believe Mrs. Clinton is responsible for the problem (it could very well be interests other than those relating to the candidates, who are simply hoping to pit their candidates of choice in the general election). I don't know, and thus far, no answer has been satisfactory, for me anyway. I want to know what happened. Don't you? And if you don't, is it because your candidate won? If that is the answer, then how are you different from the Republicans who in 2004 attacked all of us as simply crying over our loss?

We have to ask these questions, no matter who wins. We have to be able to trust the results. So I ask you please, in good faith - that you will not go crazy and attack one another - to examine what Brad Friedman has put together. Examine his findings as a person interested in fair elections, not as an Obama supporter or Clinton supporter. This conversation should be had, not censored and it should be had as rational, intelligent adults interested in democracy. With respect to Skinner, knowing his position, I have to ask that we have an honest discussion here and learn what we can. Please review Brad Friedman's writing on this topic. http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=122

I do believe Andy watches us, let's make him proud.

[rox63]

1. Thanks for taking a reasonable look at this n/t

[lala_rawraw]

18. sure, i am just trying

to make sure we are a united front and that we cannot be put against one another, no matter what the shiny prize is.

[Voice for Peace]

65. thank you, well stated!

[helderheid]

2. K&R

Thank you - and yes, let's make Andy proud!

[mod mom]

3. Thanks LaLa, funny how some folks worked hard at making ER folks look foolish

to the media-isn't it? You have to wonder why anyone would be against verifying elections especially after all that has come out on e-voting. I haven't read one post blaming Clinton but yet some of her backers are here attempting to disparage the work of activists trying to make sure all votes count. Now even DU is relegating threads like yours to the new dungeon-ER while allowing fruitless attack threads w/o any substance to fester here as flamebait.

[lala_rawraw]

8. i think emotions can get in the way sometimes...

and given the amount of abuse we have been dealing with, people feeling strongly that their candidate is going to save democracy... so emotions can run high. i understand that... i just think we all need to step back, take a deep breath, and simply examine the information and ask the questions, have the discussion.:)

[eowyn_of_rohan]

55. Troubling that some care MORE about their candidate than saving democracy

It is mind-numbing that some people here are still in denial over the well-documented problems associated with electronic voting systems (not only Diebold, BTW, but also ES&S and Sequoia). Unless and until we have a transparent voting system, there is no democracy.

I want to add, are the people who turn a blind eye to election manipulation any better than those who DO the manipulating, to make sure their candidate "wins"?

[creeksneakers2]

59. Wonder why anybody would be against verifying elections?

One downside is that the media will pick up on the story and Hillary will be suspected of fixing the election. If there is a question about whether Hillary did something wrong or not some Hillary haters will jump to conclusions. "She must have done it because she's so evil." The right wing has already picked up on the idea that Hillary might have fixed the election. If the audit finds the final tally was in order, many of the same people who accused her at first will just come up with another excuse to make it look like she did it. When has proof of innocence ever stopped Clinton critics?

Its kind of having a cop arrest you with no evidence. Suppose the cop said to you, "We don't have any evidence but in the interest of justice wouldn't a trial be a good idea? What would it hurt?" The same line of reasoning has been used against Hillary countless times. "Doesn't the public have a right to know? What are you trying to hide?" Once the media circus begins, additional questions and charges start floating around and soon the original question is lost in a blur of other incriminating questions. In the minds of many, questions equal guilt.

An audit will unfairly harm Hillary in upcoming primaries.

Another reason against the audit is that it will increase public perception that lefties on the net are all kooks if the audit fails to show problems. Mass opinions coming from this new medium will be even more ignored. Politicians will want to distance themselves even more.

The integrity of elections matters more to me than Hillary getting the nomination. If there were stronger reasons to doubt the New Hampshire vote I'd be all for an audit. The original exit poll results were very close to the final tally. The chance that the election was hacked is remote. It doesn't seem worth an audit to me.

And by the way, I don't believe in 2004 vote fraud either, so its not just that I want to defend my candidate.

[AikidoSoul]

63. You've forgotten that exit polls are "adjusted" by

the polltakers to what the final vote tally is. This has been one of the biggest problems -- the media essentiall owns the polls so if you trust the media then take the results with total confidence.

Your last sentence saying that you "..don't believe in 2004 vote fraud either..." shows you've hardened your position so much that you can't even see the facts as they were laid out. If you did you wouldn't be the least bit confident.

[creeksneakers2]

66. The original exit polls showed a close race

At 8PM they had Obama ahead by one point, so adjustments didn't substantially change the projections. I've argued that the most original exit polls results were even more in line with the finals but I've had a tough time explaining my logic.

I didn't harden my position on vote rigging. My whole approach to analyzing anything is to go with the simplest explanation. As they say on Kos, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I believe in very few conspiracy theories of any kind.

[AikidoSoul]

74. The trouble with computerized counting or tabulation is that there IS NO EVIDENCE

and that is the problem.

And the tabulation software and firmware are completely off limits. Proprietary, privately owned.

No evidence does not mean that crimes are not committed.

I've been examining this for several years now. Am the president of a small computer company as well, and
know that there is no way in the world to ever, ever, ever secure any type of computerized voting or
tabulation. To think that there is is pollyannaish to the ultimate.

And yes, simple explanations that don't require much thinking are easiest to swallow. That's why this scam
continues. The public is essentially lazy and apathetic about his. The rest of us have been called
conspiracy theorists until finally the MSM comes out and says, yes... these machines are not trustworthy.
But then there are people like you who go with "the simplest explanation" and continue the apathy and
inertia into yet a 4th election cycle with thievery becoming more sophisticated and harder to stop.

[truckin]

4. Well said. It is incredible how people react when this topic comes

up after an election.

[deminks]

5. Thank you. A voice of reason. Rage against the machines, not a candidate.

[foo_bar]

6. "This conversation should be had, not censored..."

Try here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x489447
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x489649

I do believe Andy watches us, let's make him proud.

As Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org who seems to share my concern, says, LHS is the "chain of custody" in New Hampshire elections.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

[lala_rawraw]

9. excellent... i had not seen that...

thanks for posting it:)

[IndyOp]

7. Thank you Lala -- Now, when the problem is between 2 Dems, is the time to

discuss this issue rationally. If we can lead the media towards looking at any/all "strange" election results in as non-partisan a manner as possible we will have the chance to rationally discuss any oddities in future election results.

[lala_rawraw]

10. we can also just get drunk...

which might be the next logical step if the stress levels don't come down to reasonable levels;)

[DCKit]

11. Will you ever accept the fact that voter fraud, alone, is the only issue here?

:sarcasm:

Seriously, any twisted logic they can use to keep the machines will be used extensively and, until they are busted for election fraud, chances are that Diebold/Premier will be the machine most of us use.

The simple fact is that we could go back to paper, human-verified voting well in advance of the G.E. and there would be no question about the validity of the vote. Why are they holding onto the current system so tightly? In what way does HAVA mandate electronic voting machines as opposed to paper ballots?

The last two pResidential elections are dubious wins, at best, but I've been wondering, right along, how many other races were stolen? I believe that there is a built-in bias in the software, but that bias must also require a close race before the election is thrown to the Republics, otherwise the fraud would be too obvious.

Just a thought.

[lala_rawraw]

12. I do think that so long as Diebold is used...

there will be distrust, well earned I might add:)

[diane in sf]

23. Unfortunately ES&S, Triad and the rest are suspect as well. They're all owned

by Repugs and/or defense contractors.

[EFerrari]

21. It's election fraud. n/t

[kma3346]

13. Hear, hear!

My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the New Hampshire results. Why is is so inconceivable that the people that control the counting of the ballots via DIEBOLD machines might have a vested interest in changing the primary results for both Democrats AND Republicans so that they get their desired outcome (WHATEVER that may be and for WHATEVER reason!!)

If everything is on the up and up, why can't we have proof of it? I, for one, do not have any faith whatsoever in the outcome of any future elections that are not open and transparent to the public. This means that I don't have faith in most of the primary results, and I absolutely do not have faith in the upcoming presidential results. My God, voting is our most fundamental right and we're not allowed to see the results because someone else (and not an impartial "someone else" either) is in control of it??? Give me a break!!!

What's it going to come down to? Hoards of citizens standing outside polling booths, writing down the vote of the people voting and tallying it up ourselves later to make sure we aren't cheated of our most basic right? This makes me sick!


:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Digit]

14. Can anyone tell me why votes kept backtracking?

This is how the changes went for Edwards:
24709, 26221, 26683, 26773, 27319,
27137, 27319, 27578, 27319, 27578,
27798, 27813, 28088, 27813, 28088,
27813, 28088, 27813, 28088, 27813,
28323, 28668, 29060, 28323, 29060,
29126, 29481, 29126, 29918, 29126,
29918, 29126, 30337, 30466, 30337,
30466, 30662, 30466, 30877, 30859,
30877, 30662, 30877, 32548, 33007,
32548, 33007, 33165, 32548, 30662,
33165, 33428, 33490, 33428, 33572,
33846, 33490, 39472, 33846, 33572,
33846, 33490, 33572, 33846, 33572,
33490, 33846, 34526, 33846, 33572,
34526, 33846, 34526,

I also noticed it with Richardson when he was in the 8000 range and fell back to the 7000 range.

Then just for fun, I began tracking Hillarys:
75831, 82606, 82938, 82606, 82938,
82606, 82938, 84906, 82938, 84776,
84096, 84776, 84096, 84776, 84896,
84951

I just used my refresh button and only wrote down when the numbers changed.

It may just be normal with voting machines, but I am curious why the numbers backtrack on many of the candidates.

I wish I had taken note of Obamas, but by then I kept posting questions as to why it was happening, hoping someone would clue me in.

[unc70]

16. That looks like update lag in their server farm

Translated (and somewhat simplified):

Most large sites have many computers which act as web servers in a "server farm".

When your request to refresh the page arrives at their site, it is routed to the next available machine which then sends you the latest version of that page _which that machine has_. For performance and other reasons, the servers refresh their copies of pages at slightly different times from each other. It appears that your refresh requests were sometimes alternating between a mahine that had been "refreshed" and one still running the previous version.

This behavior could also be the result of similar situations involving the nearly-transparent involvement of the really large hosting and caching sites along the backbone of the net.


You can see this type behavior when checking the current scores of live sports events or really active bidding on Ebay.

I worry a lot when I see things happen I can't yet explain. In this particular case, I don't see anything to worry further about.

[stillcool]

71. I'm wondering that too...

I'm not computer literate, but noticed on the ABC page, where the live results were posted, that every update had a time stamp. But the time often went backwards. For instance..it would go 9:02, 9:04, 9:12..then 9:02 again..then 9:15. Sometimes the repeated time totals would be different, and sometimes they would be the same. I took some screen shots, in hopes that someone could explain it to me, but so far the only explanation I've gotten I didn't understand.

[Mnemosyne]

15. kicking for Andy! n/t

[lala_rawraw]

17. god i miss him!

[Mnemosyne]

30. He was an amazing guy!

:hug:

[Kurovski]

19. Thanks, and a K&R.

:kick:

[althecat]

20. Excellent L

KnR

[starroute]

22. It's occurred to me one goal might be to discredit the polls

In other countries, the fairness of elections is generally measured by how closely the results compare to the polls, particularly the exit polls. If Americans can be accustomed to accept that even a 17% turnaround is within the margin of error -- or of last-minute changes in sympathy -- then the polls become useless as an indicator of fraud.

I can see a clever manipulator -- say, for example, somebody safely retired to Texas with the initials K.R. -- laughing up his sleeve as he calmly and dispassionately manipulates the Democratic primaries in whichever direction will confound the pollsters, knowing that whoever wins the nomination now is irrelevant compared to the outcome in November.

I can also see there being no manipulator -- just an anomalous polling situation -- but even that sets up certain assumptions that can be used against us the next time there really is a stolen election.

In either case, we need the results looked into *now* -- while there is still some hope of getting to the bottom of things and before the meme of the unreliability of polls can sink into the public consciousness.

[rudy23]

26. This is my #1 reason for wanting a recount. I think the same thing. We have to challenge this!

At the very least, let them know they can't just control results willy nilly if they so choose. Let 'em know we're watching them. Can't hurt!

[Usrename]

43. Bingo! We have a winner!

They also seem to use some canned rhetoric to explain the sudden deviation from the expected results.

I guess it could have happened that way, but I think it's a lot more likely that the vote was tampered with.

[HughMoran]

44. Exit polls - Obama +1, Actual Results Clinton +3 - they were off by 4%

Seems like it's better than we initially thought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/07/DI2008010702131.html?nav=hcmodule

[Spiffarino]

46. That's been the goal since 2000

KKKarl and his merry band of thugs always pointed out how wrong the polls were. I find myself screaming at the TV every election when some Reichwinger howls about polls being wrong, "Of course they're wrong you pig...you damn well fixed it so they would be!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Or, perhaps say, Mark J Penn?

Until recently, acclimating people to counterintuitive elections was his day job

Penn, Schoen, Berland and associates. Nice guys once you get to know them, no doubt

[frogcycle]

53. He HAS been rather vocal about this particular result, hasn't he?

Olbermann was even saying he appears to be HRC's newest supporter.

[AntiFascist]

24. Thanks for that Larissa!

I agree that the Clinton campaign may not be responsible, but oddly there is also Republican shilling going on for Clinton, and conservative pundits endorsing the "crying made them change their minds" theory. I smell a big rat and I would like to see a solid investigation into this election.

[doublethink]

25. Thanks LaLa !

Peace.

[robinlynne]

27. Thank-you. This needs to be said loudly.

[EFerrari]

28. I'm sorry. I've seen no hord of Obama supporters flogging this.

I've seen my ER buddies raising questions and being pilloried just as we were in 2004.

By now, even though I care not a whit for either Clinton or Obama, I care very much less for their shills who are no friends to clean elections.

I hope they have a good time together on my ignore list.

[lala_rawraw]

33. the ignore list...

I have not used since I have been here... for over three years... until a few days ago, it suddenly became full. Emotions are well and good, but we must put our emotions to the side, and stick together on principle.

[EFerrari]

35. My ignore list is really more like a time out list.

We'll be fine.

[crikkett]

69. good response,

made me smile, thanks.

[Samantha]

29. You are too kind

You use the word "psychotic." I too have no candidate in this race but feel I have been rabidly attack when stating simple logical impressions of the NH anomaly. The principals at stake here at bigger than all of us, and if we want to preserve our Democratic integrity, we must ask the critical questions, but civilly, of course.

[lala_rawraw]

32. someone noted up thread...

that this could be an attempt to discredit the polls... you know, that makes perfect sense. and the distraction is ideal, pit us against one another.

[JackRiddler]

31. Let us recall the fraud of 1972.

It was Republican operatives sabotaging Muskie so as to fix the Democratic primaries on behalf of McGovern. McGovern knew nothing about this and would not have desired it.

Wanting to verify a vote count does not represent an accusation against anyone.

[lala_rawraw]

34. well said... as always n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

36. I retract my earlier 'sour grapes'.

My first reaction Wednesday morning was in fact 'sour grapes'. I apologize. When it became mostly clear that once again the exit polls have been polluted with the official tally, and when it was widely reported from multiple sources that the pre-pollution exit poll numbers showed an 8% swing from Obama to Clinton compared to the post-polluted exit poll numbers, and when it was further reported from multiple sources that the hand counted precincts matched the pre-polluted exit poll numbers, sour grapes became the fine wine of institutional failure. My state needs to audit the results. End of story unless the facts as I now know them are once again wrong.

[Bonobo]

37. Good on you. Welcome to the only reasonable course of action.

Even if it sucks...

[lala_rawraw]

38. You, sire, are a gentelman n/t

[creeksneakers2]

60. I don't agree with those facts.

Exit polls were changed to reflect the final tally but the exit poll results showed an extremely close race before updating occurred. At 8:00 they had Obama up by 1 point. That's far from the pre-election polls and very close to the final result.

Hand counted precincts had Obama up by 5%. Again, the exit poll had Obama by 1%, so that isn't a match. Comparing hand counted election results is apples to oranges, because smaller municipalities are more likely to hand count and bigger ones are more likely to use the machines. Its very possible that Obama did better in small towns than Hillary but worse in bigger municipalities. When the data is normalized to compare apples to apples, the machine counts and the automated counts match.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. I'm fine with getting to the bottom of it.

As I pointed out, or at least as I thought I pointed out, those were the set of facts I had at hand last night. So let's find out exactly what happened here in NH. Why aren't all machine tabulated elections subject to statistically valid random sample audits automatically as a check on the accuracy of the tabulation? Why should anyone be ridiculed for demanding that our votes are accurately counted?

My retraction remains in place. Demanding election integrity is not 'sour grapes'.

[creeksneakers2]

72. I'm happy to see audits

if the audits are scheduled and routine. I don't like after the fact claims that the election was stolen that only come up when Hillary wins. And audit initiated after the election makes it appear that she fixed the election.

[BradBlog]

39. Thanks Larisa (and important indeed!)

Thanks for the words of encouragement for all. You stand up for Election Integrity *always*, not just when it may or may not affect some candidate you care about. For the record, since Laris mentioned it, I don't care about any of 'em. This year, I'm tossing my support behind the VOTERS. Someone's gotta support THEM for a change.

Anyway, yes, I'm mighty concerned about the pushback that we're seeing from progressive quarters. As if it's okay that 80% of the ballots in such an anomalous election have never been counted or examined by anyone. It's not. They need to be counted. Every vote. And counted accurately (no matter what the results).

I had a post nearly ready to go on more concerns about that pushback, and some of the extraordinary behavior I've seen from some of the so-called Progressives over the last two days. Last time I saw it, it was 2004, and it wasn't the Progressives who were calling me names like "crackpot" "Tawana Brawley" and worse for reporting on concerns about Election Integrity.

May not get it posted tonight due to the breaking news (Kucinich filing for a NH recount! - http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5544)

Anyway, thanks also to Larisa, btw, both for speaking out and for so much of her own work and dogged investigative reporting on EI issues. Especially "back in the day" when it was a pretty lonely world for those willing to report on such things. Before it became NYTimes Mag cover-girl material :-)

[Ellipsis]

42. To both of you.

:toast:

K&R

[Tuesday_Morning]

40. K & R

Thank you, Lala!

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

41. Agree, it's all about transparency

Without this, no democracy can function.

[balantz]

45. Thank you lala.

It really should be everybodys' primary concern that election fraud is addressed, and immediately. If we are being robbed we will continue to lose more and more of all we hold sacred as citizens of a Democracy. I appreciate that you are attempting to bring all of us together here beyond the fray of the primary battle, reminding us that we are all losers here if this corruption continues any further. This issue should not be on the back burner on this forum, or in Congress, and should be forced into discussion in the mainstream media at every possible chance.

[orleans]

48. kucinich is going for a recount!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2658182

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5544

and the best yet:

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/

Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount in the interest of election integrity

DETROIT, MI – Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”

“I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,” Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, “Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.”



Also, the reports, allegations, and rumors regarding possible vote-count irregularities have been further fueled by the stunning disparities between various “independent” pre-election polls and the actual election results," Kucinich wrote. "The integrity, credibility, and value of independent polling are separate issues, but they appear to be relevant in the context of New Hampshire’s votes."

He added, “Ever since the 2000 election – and even before – the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.”

Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.” No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.

“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address – and, if so determined, rectify – these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter.

“Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday’s Presidential primary in that state.

hooray!

[OneBlueSky]

49. excellent post . . . as it stands right now, we don't really know who won NH . . .

any more than we know who won many elections over the past decade . . . as long as private corporations conduct and, especially, count the votes, we have no reason to be confident in any election results . . . thanks for stating it so eloquently . . .

[Norrin Radd]

50. k+r

[earth mom]

51. Thank you. Amazing how soon people forget the stolen election of 2004 or 2000 for that matter.

:argh:

[sss1977]

52. Hear hear!

[caseycoon]

54. Great post! The machines have been my main concern

because no matter what we do, how hard we work, how much we donate to our candidates, if the machines don't give us an honest count we might as well have been sitting on our butts & doing nothing.
It is ironic & sad that our gov touts honest elections all over the world & we can't get one here!

Thank you!

[ecdab]

56. It's worth taking a closer look.

The integrity of our elections is more important than who emerges as the Democratic candidate. This is a perfect opportunity to look at the voting system in New Hampshire, if all involved parties agree to do so. Given that all involved parties have expressed some doubts in the machines being used there, I see no reason why they would not do so, beyond placing the desire to win above the desire to have free and fair elections. Our friends over in the GOP are very familiar with that idea, I hope we are better than that which we claim to be fighting against.

The information we have to date doesn't indicate that there is a problem, but it does seem to indicate that a problem similar to ones we have encountered in previous years may exist. That's worth looking at. IF HRC won, that's grand. She's a worthy candidate. But her winning is inconsequential when compared to the integrity of our elections.

[chimpymustgo]

57. Thank you for your hard work, and your calm rationality. I was a "hair on fire" poster

yesterday morning. I finally left my house for the entire afternoon and went shopping (the American way!). Came home early evening and noticed a real change of tone on the board. More people moving our way. Exactly who DOESN'T want fair, transparent, verified elections?

[fascisthunter]

58. Very Well Said lala_rawraw

Because I am a Kucinich supporter and have said so in the past, it may seem as if I am a bit biased regarding Dennis' decision, however I too feel this is necessary. We should hold our election process to a very high standard.

[peacetalksforall]

61. We have to be very careful - DU/Skinner message related. In support of Lala.

Last night I saw the message Skinner posted yesterday moving this kind of talk out of GD to Election Reform. I was upset. All evening and the first thing this morning I was troubled by these two sentences from his message.

"If there were any credible evidence to support the allegation of fraud or voting machine malfunction in New Hampshire, then I would be more than willing to let the discussion continue in our two General Discussion forums. But at this point no such evidence has been produced."

It is essential that phrasing be carefully considered and distinctions are made.

Fraud - and - Voting machine malfunction:

Fraud when combined as Voter Fraud is exactly the phrase that Republicans are using and used in all their manipulations involving the U.S. Attorney scandal where Voter Fraud was the issue in the firing. What they wanted the U.S. Attorneys to do was investigate and charge certain people of voting fraudulently. They flipped the problem of voting integrity and were trying to plant the concept that crime was carried out by voters requiring the 'government' to go after them and that they, the Republicans, and DOJ were being diligent about 'the problem' by doing so.

Malfunction. To me, that is a breakdown - a happenstance.

What has been discussed here on DU for years has nothing to do with everyday voters committing a crime or breakdowns.

What we have been discussing on DU for years is is Intentional Manipulation and Serious Irregularities and Anomalies involving TOTALS and RATIOS.

The problem also includes totals and ratios in relation to exit polling. And the strange firing of the exit polling company by the five networks who relied on the company for years and which had a reputation of accuracy (making it easier for the networks to obfuscate and create their own justifications for the anomalies.

It may have happened again. There is a suspicion. This is not a tin foil hat situation. This needs to be looked at because it has happened before and because it is Diebold. If it needs to be looked at, it needs to be discussed and reported on.

[Lerkfish]

62. fully in support of you, lala

and what you're saying.

bravo well said

[lala_rawraw]

67. :D

[AikidoSoul]

64. Well done LaLa

So good to see a reasonable voice speak out.

Kicked and recommended

[newburgh]

68. My contention was the appearance of DU questioning BradBlog's credibility...

No one has come close to Brad Friedman's selfless focus and consistent updates on this issue. Not everything he(or fellow bloggers) posts needs to be in DU's GD forum. However, this is a huge issue, that has the potential to open some questionable doors.

If he considers a question about the balloting, he always eloquently states his reasoning. For those of us who keep an eye on DU and participate here, I believe it's important that these matters get discussed in this larger forum- and the broader attention that comes with it.

From my point of view, Brad Friedman is a hero. Without the problems he's exposed we would ignore the problem altogether- and never delve very deeply into it even if red flags did occur- and all of these discussions would be for naught because some unknown factor could control the results of the foundation of our democracy, the COUNTING/legitimacy of our votes.

Here, here to lala for breaking through the censorship! And to Brad for his heroism!

:toast:

[Whisp]

73. I have a couple questions. to lala or brad or whoever would know...

1. At this moment where exactly should the the paper ballots and the scanners/cards be? are they both kept together or separately? Who has custody, right now?

2. If a recount does happen - what is the procedure? What percentage of the paper is counted and how is this determined? shuffled like a deck of cards?

3. Will there be an effort to compare the totals on the digital data to make a match to the paper?

I am very happy that there is a possibility of a recount but I am also a bit skeptical as to whether even this procedure is above manipulation. If the recount supports the numbers on Tuesday it will be ever more so difficult to go another round of this in another election.

thanks for all your hard work, all of you that have invested so much time and heart in this important matter.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.