Home » Blogs » intranets's blog

NH recount back on full state for both GOP & Dems

Submitted by intranets on Wed, 2008-01-16 11:52.

The Kucinich recount is under way today. Unfortunately, Kucinich is doing a Nader version where he is only going to recount a few large Diebold precincts and then call it a day. Just like Nader before him, the electronic results will match the hand count.

[EDIT] Some Kucinich folks claim they are counting the whole state.

The bigger question that everyone seems to missing is the little matter of who handled these ballots since election night. I have heard rumors that the LHS shady company that is the one-stop shop for New England voting, in addition to programming the machines, tabulating the memory cards, also dropped off and picked up the machines and possibly all of the paper ballots.

As to the Republican recount (Union Leader), that isn’t going so well since the candidate who receive 157 votes statewide couldn’t come up with the required money for a statewide recount in time.

[EDIT] They now have the money for the recount and it is proceeding.

Previous PayPal mishaps prevented the money from arriving in time yesterday.
From the Granny Warriors:

We have sent off the money to a newly opened bank account in NH opened by the former Attorney General for this purpose. The funds left our account and we thought it was a done deal.

As soon as I sent out the message the money was on its way we received a big donation of $1000 and it got flagged as a suspicious entry.?

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Furl
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Paultards in action

Submitted by intranets on Wed, 2008-01-16 16:22.

Terrorizing a town clerk

lb, some stats on NH results

Submitted by intranets on Wed, 2008-01-16 16:24.

This guy has some more hard statistics on the NH Diebold anomaly.

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.

He also links to five similar statistical analyses.

edit

Submitted by intranets on Wed, 2008-01-16 16:43.

Double post … I got caught by the a n a l filter.

Observation by a small-town clerk

Submitted by bringiton on Wed, 2008-01-16 17:46.

Said Sutton, NH town clerk Jennifer Hall after being accosted by Ron Paul supporters upset over a quickly corrected clerical error that failed to initially record Paul’s 31 votes (out of 920), per intranet’s comment above:

“Most of the these people are not rational”

Another dot to connect regarding the Paul candidacy.