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

Voting Method







Total Votes














Hand Ballot







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.


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, 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.

Sham Chain of Custody ( Video 1, Video 2 )

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.

~ by Bill Noxid on January 9, 2008.

20 Responses to “Pretend Primary: Diebold strikes again”

  1. this is pretty compelling. do you know if the paper ballots were spread across the state or were in only a few locations?

  2. […] a look at this post, and follow up by investigating for yourself. That’s all I’m […]

  3. I found this to be a very compelling chart of the differences:

    I THINK I agree with the author that it may be more of a “counties that support Clinton happened to have Diebold machines” issue, but I could be wrong.

  4. thank you for this very important information! i remember christopher hitchens wrote about ohio’s “odd numbers” in 2004, and frankly, i wouldn’t put it past the clinton hit machine.

  5. […] the Diebold Way Jan09 9 January 2008, mudslide @ 8:45 pm I am not sure what to make of this but Bill Noxid has been digging into the voting numbers from yesterday’s extraordinary New Hampshire primary […]

  6. Bill, thank you for your observations. I did the same thing you did. After the results in Iowa, the growing poll numbers for Obama in N.Hampshire totally made sense, no matter who you support. Even Hillary knew that the polls were correct (as you observed). When I started seeing the vote totals come in I thought it was very strange. I found a list (on the web) of all the towns in N.H. which listed each towns voting mechanism (hand counted paper ballots or Diebold Accuvote. I started penciling in the totals as they came in. It quickly became clear that the votes in the hand counted towns reflected the predicted preference for Obama. Some hand counted towns were close, others indicated an overwhelming vote for Obama. The Diebold towns went the other way, some close, some with large totals for Clinton. As I worked on my list, I became more and more angry, because I could look at a newly reported town total and I knew by looking at the total if it was hand or Accuvote counted BEFORE I confirmed it with my list of towns. Clinton picked up large numbers of votes in the larger towns (all Diebold) The only possible “other” explanation is that “urban” voters voting in the Democratic primary decided to vote for Hillary, while their smaller town neighbors decided to vote for Obama. I don’t know New Hampshire very well. I’ve been to Vermont a number of times and I asssume they are similar. I don’t think there are any large urban area in either state. I (as you observed) can’t believe that these urban New Hampshirites are so different from the suburban and rural ones that it would explain why they gave so many votes to Clinton over Obama. It’s a pretty homogenius state isn’t it. There’s no Hispanic vote, or Black Vote that would account for a large swing for Clinton in urban areas. Clinton won some “hand counted” town, but the vote was always close. I’m convinced that votes were switched. As as you say, the explanation offered by the media pundits, tearing up, or Hillary for Change just don’t cut it.
    Thanks for clearly stating what I’ve been fuming about all day. Somehow this has to be exposed.

  7. Argh!! How do we spread the word?!? How can we let this “just happen” yet again?! What will it take? First Florida in 2000, then Ohio in 2004, now this.

    What will it take?

  8. What bothers me about this is not that I’m convinced that it is true, but that people are so quick to dismiss it that there has been no investigation of this since 2002.

    If Clinton is part of the problem, it means that both parties are complicit in it and we will never have democracy in our country again.

    I’m not saying that this is true, but I am saying there has been more than enough evidence to warrant investigation, and the government’s refusal to do so adds more fuel to the conspiracy fire.

  9. my precinct uses optical scanning. if there is any question about the results it would be simple enough to check the ballots. there isn’t that much difference between filling in a circle and marking an x. unless they burn the ballots, there should be a way to check the ballots.

    if they had been using touch screens…

  10. There is no touch-screen voting in New Hampshire. Even the Diebold machines are optical scan. So there is a paper trail. Doing a recount should put this to bed one way or the other.

    It probably should be demanded by somebody other than Obama, however…

    As for the polls, they were actually pretty accurate across the board except for Hillary. The difference between expected (poll) and actual votes cast for Obama and Edwards was small. Hillary, it seems, didn;t take votes from them. For her numbers to exceed expectaions they had to come from somewhere, and I suspect it from undecideds and independants. That’s why McCain’s lead was not overwhelming.

    I think NH voters saw the media calling the race early (like on Friday!) and the beating Hillary was taking and theyresponded to that.

    All of that said, I would like to see a recount.

  11. Thanks for the data. I too looked at it and I don’t trust the “Diebold Factor” either.

    However, I must say this… I live in central NH and I volunteered in our small town to work on the voter checklist and to count votes on Tuesday evening. I’ve been doing this for over 15 years now, so you can see the trends happening as you start counting the votes.

    Turnout was huge… we had almost 200 new voter registrations this week. Many, of them young people, but ‘lot’s’ of women, young and old. About 1,700 votes were cast in our town, so new voters made up about 10%-12% of the total. (Note: These people never got ‘polled’ in the lead up to the primary because they are ‘not’ on the voter checklist prior to election day.)

    My counting partner and I counted 201 of the democratic (paper) ballots after the polls closed. I was hoping Obama would win, but the Clinton votes kept adding up.

    At the end of the counting Clinton had 80 out of the 201 votes we hand counted… Obama had 63. That’s 40% to 32% in our small sampling. This ‘trend’ was pretty darn close to the final results.

    925 Democratic ballots were cast in our town… Clinton got 37%, Obama 32%, Edwards 22%, and others got the rest.

    As much as I’d like to blame it all on Diebold… and I don’t trust those machines for a minute… she beat him fair and square in our small town.

    One other thing… if you look at the town by town results… look for Hanover & Lebanon (Dartmouth), Plymouth… (Plymouth State Univ), Durham (UNH), Henniker (N.E. College), New London (Colby Coll.) and Keene (Keene State College).

    Obama carried those towns easily, but he didn’t do well in the mill towns like Berlin, Gorham, Franklin and other traditional blue collar communities.

    The Obama kids were ‘jumpin,’ came to my house several times. My guess…they were dyin’ to fill out every survey and poll they could find!

    Working Moms? Survey? Poll? “Sorry young fella…I just got out of work…I barely had time to vote…I’ve gotta get home and cook dinner, clean the house and get the kids ready for bed… no time for a silly exit poll.”

  12. To add a little more fuel to the fire, in Iowa Obama won in the urban/suburban areas. Clinton did best in the very northern and western counties. I pretty sure these are the least populous counties in Iowa.

  13. One reason I hope Obama wins the nomination is that he seems to be the most difficult candidate for any Republican to beat. It would be to their advantage to interfere with his nomination.

    This wouldn’t be the first time I have seen this. Being from Florida, I was dismayed when (following from Wikipedia):

    “Reno ran for Governor of Florida in 2002, but lost in the Democratic primary to Bill McBride. Voting problems arose in the election, and she did not concede defeat until a week later.[9]”

    Reno had incredible name recognition as the first female Attorney General (3/11/93 – 1/20/2001) but she “lost” the nomination to the relatively unknown Bill McBride. Jeb then “won” re-election as Governor.

    This is first thing I thought about when the polls again were “wrong.” Then, when I saw the YouTube video from Black Box Voting and read about John Silvestro and LHS Associates “counting” 81% of the votes in N.H., it confirmed my doubts of yet another unfair election.

    Polls did seem to have accurately accounted for Republicans in N.H. and for all of Iowa. The only discrepancy was Obama/Clinton.

    Funny how before the bush administration, polls always seemed reliable. bush even claimed Ukrainian election must have been rigged because the voting results did not match the presumedly accurate polls.

    Now, each surprise favors Republicans. How strange…

  14. Aw Shucks folks just go to and see what Art Jones has uncovered.
    For all you Ron Paul fans they did not even count the 31 votes they say he got. The first result said 0 then after checking opps there were 31 of those pesky votes for Dr. Paul.
    Time to wake up AMERICA and claim your birthright to be free.
    Birth of a new nation
    Birth is always Messy………

  15. Make that Alex Jones
    Sorry Alex I’m worn out researching all this stuff.

  16. […] Kucinich Seeks NH Dem Vote Recount – [AP] […]

  17. Thank you for trying to bring this out into the open. I’m a bit of a math nerd and, once I heard the rumors, did some calculations on the raw data as well. The results both shocked and scared me!!

    Here are two questions I have. First, I don’t believe that the Clintons personally decided to hack into the machines. What is more likely to me is that there is a computer glitch OR that someone that stands to gain from a Clinton nominee did hack into the system. Could we did deeper for a connection?

    My main question — How do we get this into the media forefront?? I have emailed and called and I am concerned with the lack of coverage on this story. This should be HUGE news and yet most people don’t know it exists. Any ideas on how we can start a movement for coverage?

  18. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph that was a LONG post but I like your content, and in the spirit of b.a.d and my genuine interest in your blog, I shall add you to my roll and now whore my own:


  19. Just a thuoght…

    Don’t the polling orgs keep a district by district breakdown of exit polls?

    And another…

    Would a FOI request get it out of them?

  20. […] difficult to find any measure of truth. In my last writing on Diebold ( which I suggest you read ), the fact that so many hand-counted districts were right next to Accuvote districts made the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: