Pretend Primary: Diebold strikes again
2000, 2004 revisited…
A week ago I was proud to be an American. Obviously that has been a scarce occurrence over the last eight years, but Iowa showed the true promise of this country. In a state that had 2% minority representation, Iowa overwhelmingly proved that “white” Americans ( sans the powers-that-be ) indeed have the capacity to see past the color of skin, and demonstrated a true desire for “change”. The stunning collective upheaval of “Hope” was a glorious thing to see.
The momentum was not and is not imaginary. That fact was proved out by the response we witnessed from the mainstream media. Their obliviousness was suddenly shattered, and they were forced to view reality in an entirely new fashion… A task that found most of them fumbling for new tools to work with.
Almost instantly, the tide swept through to New Hampshire and within a day, the polls reflected as much. The momentum only increased over the five days to the point that the Clintons were visibly angry, agitated, and confused. The sheep were not being herded properly, and their displeasure was evident. Their final shots at Obama revealed latent prejudices that sadly most white Americans of a certain age have, whether they demonstrate them or not.
The only questions that remained were how large a cascade would occur and would Hillary even have cause to stay in the race afterwards. No one in this world would have expected to see such discussions on mainstream media, but there they were… Trying to figure out a future they hadn’t seen coming.
Yet one day later and here we are again with primary results that in no way shape or form match the pre-election polls, the sentiment of the country, or the turnouts “on the ground” in New Hampshire. Magically we are transported to elections gone by, and topsy-turvy results. Once again in the last moments, 14% of the population of New Hampshire voters decided that change in fact was not what they wanted, and decided this without any indication whatsoever. I don’t believe a bit of it, and neither should you.
Numerous hypotheses have been posed to explain this “miraculous” occurrence. “Tearing up” made her seem more “sensitive” or “human” – A flimsy argument at best if you saw the remainder of that “tearful” comment in which she proceeded to assault Obama. Perhaps it was because young people didn’t turn out, or that independents voted for McCain? More useless arguments since the “young people” were certainly turning out for the rallies and McCain certainly didn’t win by that much. Not to mention people voting democratic were still significantly more than those voting republican.
So what did change between these two events? What dramatic difference could account for such a shift? The answer is quite obvious. The Iowa caucus was conducted with people raising their hands, in the open, and walking to a particular side of the room to be counted. There’s no way to “hack” that. Voting machines counting the so-called “secret” ballot in New Hampshire however, can be, have been, and are being.
One would have hoped that with the mountain of evidence of the “hackability” of the Diebold ( Accuvote ) machines and their scandalous past, no state would “touch” these fraudulent devices. Yet 81% of the votes in the New Hampshire primary were counted on these same Accuvote atrocities… A fact that ( as usual ) has escaped any mention from the endlessly speculating punditry.
New Hampshire ( thankfully ) is not entirely Accuvote however, and the remaining municipalities use paper ballots that are hand counted. These are obviously much more difficult to interfere with if you are not the party conducting the count.
So to satisfy my certainty of the fraud I was witnessing, I decided to add up the hand counted ballots and add up the Accuvote ballots to compare the margins and trends. A simple comparison to be sure and one I would hope someone from MSNBC or CNN would stop talking long enough to provide, but in the absence thereof, here’s how it works out.
At the time of this writing, 297 precincts reporting out of 301
Granted, I left out Edwards and the other candidates in calculating the percentages, but only to illustrate the point. Including them would not change the vote totals anyway and ( from what I hear ) those totals match their expected outcome. I’ll provide the breakdown below in the event someone wants to work the percentages including the other candidates. At least you won’t have to sift out the data like I did. Maybe someone at MSNBC isn’t doing anything important…
What this clearly shows however, is where the 14% points some polls indicated Obama was leading by went. As you can see, the ballots that were counted by hand give Obama a 7.5% win while the Accuvote “count” gives Clinton a 5.5% win. The combined “shift” is 13%. Here is where the percentage points disappear that were expected right up to the casting of ballots. Not tears, not lazy young people, right here in this “shift”.
There’s no way to legitimately explain why this discrepancy would exist. These are people in the same state, voting for the same set of candidates, from the same party, and on the same day. Nothing happened to one group that didn’t happen to the other. One group doesn’t have information that the other group doesn’t have. One group couldn’t have been “moved” by the “tears” while the other was not. One group could not have had sudden “black-voting phobia” while the other did not, so these “news” people need to start looking for a plausible explanation. The only difference between these two groups is that one had their votes counted by hand, and the other by Accuvote. One group voted definitively for Obama, and the other definitively for Clinton… And as usual, after combining the two the ultimate margin of victory is too thin to be challenged and finding the truth is like finding a needle in a haystack.
If we were to apply the hand count as the standard, then the 5.5% win given to Clinton by Accuvote would actually be a 7.5% Obama win. Thus Obama would have won by nearly 15% and the pre-primary polls, the genuine voter turnout, and the pundits themselves would have all been right for a change. The real question then is which is harder for the American people to believe? The fact that every poll, every pundit, every voter interviewed, and every sensibility turned out to be so drastically wrong, or that Accuvote “flipped” the vote as it has done so many times before?
Mind you, I don’t consider Obama an ideal candidate by any stretch of the imagination. A number of his positions, affiliations, and actions leave much to be desired. The fact that he did not have people on his staff to point this evidence out to him, and that he did not demand an investigation into yet another ridiculously distorted result for instance does not make me happy at all. Al Gore and John Kerry all over again. However, the people of Iowa made an incredible statement to the rest of this country and the rest of the world, and New Hampshire was poised and willing to echo the statement. Although we need a great deal more than symbolism at this point, just the reverberations of electing a black president in such racially divisive times would send shockwaves ( positive ones for once ) around the world. The first step on the long road to true civilization and equality would be made, and the long awaited and critically needed healing could begin. I, for one, would not give Obama a “pass” for one second however, and I would expect him to be true to his word. I would expect him to listen, respond, and act on the wishes of the people. The people neither need nor should they accept anymore deciders of what’s best for them.
So I beg you to watch these primaries very carefully, and don’t be led into the non-analysis by the mainstream media. You can be sure that until they are stopped ( whoever they may be ) and a real voting system ( like actually counting ballots ) is reinstated, the pattern will continue as will the “roller coaster ride” the pundits are so excited and bewildered by. Until they are stopped, the voting machine margins will continue to hoodwink and bamboozle the American public into thinking they are part of a democratic process, while the puppet-masters continue to herd the sheep. Unless you want “them” to decide the next president yet again, it’s time to actually take back the vote.
* I created a map and spreadsheet to clearly indicate and reference the discrepancies. It’s just the raw data so anyone is free to investigate any explanation they wish. I’m quite sure however that you will find more than a few unusual “flips”, not to mention the totals at the bottom. If we get a “choice” in where the recount starts, I personally would start in Nashua, Manchester, Salem, Rochester, and Derry. These numbers include all 301 precincts reporting.
* For those who still don’t “believe” it’s possible to hack these machines, watch this short YouTube video and see it done for yourself. The Princeton Diebold security analysis and demonstration vote stealing software video are available here
* Statistical analysis from Developing Intelligence: ‘To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the “diebold effect” on Hillary’s votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that’s after adjusting for variability in Hillary’s votes due to education, income, total population, and population density.
While this “diebold effect” varies in magnitude depending on the exact covariates used, it seems to center around an additional 5.2% of votes going for Clinton from Diebold machines. The same analysis shows a Diebold disadvantage for Obama of about -4.2%, significant with a p<.001, using the same covariates.’
* I’ve yet to see any mention of the recount on CNN or MSNBC since the day Kucinich asked for it. Normally I would consider that a good thing considering MSM never mentions anything that they are actually afraid of. However, the dead silence on the topic is always a little concerning. I can only hope there is some legitimacy to the ballot chain of custody but as of January 16th, the recount has begun.
* NH CONTEST: DIEBOLD MISCOUNTS REPORTED ACROSS MANY CANDIDATES, WARDS, IN FIRST DAY OF ELECTION CONTEST HAND COUNTS Bradblog
Public Record Request by Election Integrity Advocates on Ground Reveal 550+ Votes Read as Blank by Op-Scanner in Stratham…
Disparities being found during hand-counts of ballots, in many wards, many candidates. Diebold op-scan memory cards unaccounted for at the moment. Secretary of State doesn’t track them after elections, doesn’t track error reports during elections. LHS Associates handles all of it instead, according to reports on the ground. Public records request reveals hundreds of ballots in one area scanned as blank due to incorrect ink used on ballots, and other problems on LHS problem report forms. Numbers are now being posted here from both the Democratic and Republican hand-counts in the NH Primary Election contest. So far, only wards in Manchester (Hillsborough County) have been hand-counted, and disparities between the original counts from the Diebold optical-scan machine and the hand inspections seem to be occurring in many wards, and for many candidates.
FURTHER…Voting Rights attorney John Bonifaz, legal director of VoterAction.org, was on the scene today, and just told me that he has great concerns about the transparency of both the initial election and the hand-count auditing process that got under way in earnest today.
“I’m very concerned that this is not a fully transparent process that is happening there,” he told me. – Bradblog
And as the final insult to everyone’s intelligence, here is what passes for ballot “chain of custody” in our elections. If you still believe this primary wasn’t interfered with after watching these two videos, I seriously have a bridge in Brooklyn that would be the perfect investment for you.
New Hampshire Municipalities which use the ACCUVOTE Voting Machine
(as of November 26, 2007)
To view the names of the City or Town Clerks for each municipality clerk here.
The remaining municipalities ( hand counted ballots ) are derived from the Concord Monitor – Votes by County list.