Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries 861
Westech writes "Multiple indications of vote fraud are beginning to pop up regarding the New Hampshire primary elections. Roughly 80% of New Hampshire precincts use Diebold machines, while the remaining 20% are hand counted. A Black Box Voting contributor has compiled a chart of results from hand counted precincts vs. results from machine counted precincts. In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.
Another issue is the Republican results from Sutton precinct. The final results showed Ron Paul with 0 votes in Sutton. The next day a Ron Paul supporter came forward claiming that both she and several of her family members had voted for Ron Paul in Sutton. Black Box Voting reports that after being asked about the discrepancy Sutton officials decided that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes in Sutton, but they were left off of the tally sheet due to 'human error.'"
Very easy solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Never mind.
question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:question (Score:5, Insightful)
They used to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to grab the fire extinguisher and go see where this smoke is coming from.
In the words of Patriot Act protagonists: "if there is nothing to hide, there is no harm in looking"
If for no other reason than to help settle the country down, for fuck's sake, go do a recount and get it over with, then we can all go back to our regularly scheduled updates on Britany and those others.
And please, Quickly do the recount before these people start asking about where the money for the war was spent.
Bunch of freaking radicals... geesh
For heaven's sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, not this again! Why do we bother having elections at all if they couldn't possibly deviate from "scientific polls"?
And that's "Dr. Ron Paul", thankyouverymuch.
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, no, a candidate's ENTIRE share of votes at a precinct disappearing, doesn't happen. That is inexcusable.
This is why I've long held that the only way to ensure all votes are accurately counted, is to end the secret ballot. Don't make it available on the internet, but make it so groups, with stringent limitations, can audit the list, and people can check their own vote.
I mean, look at this -- people found that their votes weren't counted, simply because a weak reality check caught it. Imagine what it's like on all the times where it *isn't* painfully obvious your vote wasn't counted!
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Being forced to vote by methods that are easy to tamper with and have no way to prove otherwise? Oh, you meant something completely different.
Is it possible that people can refuse to use the Diebold machines when they get to the poll? Can't we just say, "give me the paper ballot?" Why do we have to do it one way or the other. If someone is not knowledgeable in the ways of corruption, cannot use paper for whatever reason, or want to use the modern technology they should be permitted to do so. OTOH, if someone (like me) knows that Diebold's results are easily corrupted w/o any trace, I want to use the tried and true method.
Why can't we?
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
]{
I hope the Fraud is real (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few reasons why I hope that the fraud is real and can be proven.
1) It will make for good television, and be highly entertaining to me.
2) It will force people to realize that such fraud is possible, and force a solution to be created before the next US Federal Election.
I may be a Canadian, but I am not naive enough to think that your election results wont have an effect on my country. Also, I suspect that the kind of people willing to rig an election are not the sort you want to have running the show.
For more conspiracy fodder, are the Clintons really stupid enough to have a hand in this?
END COMMUNICATION
We go back to when Moses wore short pants (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank God this is finally being reported (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Very easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, unless we can verify independently that the results are accurate, I certainly won't trust the results of any election - even without paranoid conspiracy articles!
Not to mention, when the presidential election comes- if there's no paper trail, then the votes will have been counted behind closed doors.
Even if I could review the source code- what assurance do I have that the source code I'm reading is ACTUALLY on the machine?
I know, I sound paranoid too, now. But after the reports of our last two "elections" (or what ever you want to call it), I think it's bout time we put some accountability into effect. Lest we have an incident like last time...
"We won't stop until all the votes are counted! "
*Somebody whispers into candidate's ear*
"Oh, sorry, just kidding, it was electronically tallied, I guess we just plainly lost, despite the 20 point difference from our exit polls."
I just don't know how much faith we can put into highly-tamperable procedure with no paper. There's a lot at stake here, so there'd be much motivation to rig things up.
Heck, if it *accidentally* counted each fifth vote incorrectly, that'd be enough to change an election.
Until we can get something as basic as an election down, everything built on top of it is set to crumble.
The prize is the power, what would you do ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Electronic voting is/will be a fraud, the prize for winning is too high
I am not saying that it happened now, but i surely will happen, no matter what. Please all of you "good will" men/women come down to earth and stop pretending that electronic voting can be made perfect !
Electronic voting says: "trust me, I will count your vote for you in a way that you cannot verify". This is going to be a terrible democracy crash
Paper trail should/must be the one that counts, all the rest is exit polls (do we really care to know who the next president of US is in real time ? or better, what are we giving up to have real time results ?
Re:question (Score:5, Insightful)
Banks care about money.
Banks care a lot about money.
Banks test them. They get contracts that probably say that if defects give money away, Diebold has to replace the money lost. Banks are willing to pay for a good ATM, not try to bid it out to the lowest priced person who comes along and cuts corners. If Diebold ATMs had this many problems, they wouldn't be in business long.
My only real question on this story is, how did the precincts differ other than the machines? Are the places that used the machines mostly urban? Is there something else that correlates that could explain the discrepancy, or does it appear to have no other correlating factors?
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
If a significant number of voters choose the easy-but-insecure method of voting, then the fact that your vote was counted properly isn't going to matter.
"Let's see, 1% of voters are insisting on paper ballots, so I can't rig those. Ok, I'll skew the results I can rig by an extra 1% to compensate. Problem solved!"
Re:Very easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
All you need for that is to issue a serial number with a voting stub. Let the voter check that a given serial number exists in the tally, and what the vote was recorded as.
It would be trivial to publish the list of serial numbers, and their votes. Voters could see that their vote was recorded correctly and included in the tally. And the tallies could be independantly verified.
The only thing you couldn't do is track back who voted for who, which is a good thing I think.
Here in lies our nation's problem (Score:2, Insightful)
poorly publicized pre-primary polls (Score:5, Insightful)
In Ossipee, where I spent the majority of my time, Clinton won 281 to 261 over Obama (hand counted). There was record-shattering voted turnout in the area for both parties. Previously, the record was ~1000 voters. On Tuesday over 1500 voters showed up. Several nearby towns even reported running out of paper ballots.
I think the real problem was how the media handled their polls. Many Obama supporters I talked to on primary day mentioned that they were planning to support Ron Paul or vote against a candidate in the Republican party because they didn't believe Obama needed their support. Mind you, these are people with Obama signs in their yards who had actively been helping in his campaign. I wonder how much credit we can attribute to voter complacency rather than some Diebold conspiracy theory.
In any case, I don't understand all the fuss. Obama and Clinton were awarded the same number of delegates. This whole mess only matters to the media and spin people.
Re:These things happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone know if the elections are paid for with local taxes?
Re:I hope the Fraud is real (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, Yes.
Discrepancy on the GOP side as well (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this information points not to voter fraud, or Diebold hacking, as much as I would like to see it happen (only to prove a point). Rather, across the board, i believe the larger districts were probably not accurately sampled in the majority of pre-election polling. Many of the media polls and other reported metrics were taken at gatherings and candidate rallies, as well. Typically, only the most passionate supporters, or those who are the most undecided attend these functions. It is difficult to accurately gauge voter opinion for the entire state from such small sample sizes.
Disclaimer: I am a registered Republican in the state of Arizona, and am undecided. I have no preference for a candidate at this time.
Re:I hope the Fraud is real (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, the far more likely scenario, it will simply be disregarded by most as a crazy conspiracy theory and once again fuck up the election.
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
This wouldn't fix anything. The database can be built so that your own vote shows you who you really voted for, but the vote totals can still be skewed, since the total tallies can not be looked at person by person.
Could it be cultural differences in the precincts? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I would also like to point out that it might not be an error that the hand counted precincts give a different result than the machine counted ones. Is it possible that the precincts using the Diebold machines have significant cultural differences from the precincts still using hand-counting? For example, maybe the hand counted precincts are largely poorer rural and/or inner-city areas, while the machine counted precincts are urban and sub-urban communities with different ethnic cultures, levels of education, level of access to the Internet, religious beliefs, etc?
Why would it be reasonable to expect all precincts to vote the same way?
Re:These things happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just as the Hacker testified.... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are several reasons this could be:
- Obama genuinely did better than Clinton in the smaller, more rural towns where votes were hand-counted.
- Many people made their decision on the last day.
- NH has an open primary -- since polls before the election showed Obama with a large lead, some of them may have voted on the Republican side for McCain.
- There is the issue that voters will say they're willing to vote for an African-American candidate, but once in the voting booth, find that they actually can't. Although we didn't see that in Iowa, so I don't think that's likely the case in NH.
- Turnout was extremely high -- much higher than expected -- and people who hadn't been in polls of "likely voters" came out and voted for Clinton.
Again, when exit polls don't match the results, there's a problem. When the polls before the election don't match the results, it means there were sampling problems in the polling, or a genuine swing in opinion in a short time.
Ron Paul 0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank God this is finally being reported (Score:3, Insightful)
Cell Phone Pic as Proof of Vote? (Score:2, Insightful)
Employers and public record (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of like the idea of a serial number on a ballot in concert with a receipt, stub, or carbon copy that the voter retains for their own records, should they desire to do so. Of course, I also believe that voting should still be done on a medium that is physically marked or etched by the voter, to ensure that there's an audit trail to keep the counters honest.
Remember, it's not just he who votes, it's he who counts the votes that matters. I'd love it if U.S. election laws prohibited tallying equipment manufacturers from making political contributions and from lobbying in any way...
Re:These things happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Or rather who says you have to tell them your serial number in the first place?
Re:These things happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if Obama really did win in NH, that would be two victories, which would inspire those in SC, and if he were to win that one as well, Florida voters would be more inclined to vote for him. There is also the whole idea that most PEOPLE don't care about how many delegates, but they do care about who received the most votes. This is the issue with someone being able to win the popular vote yet lose the election type of problem.
So, these things may happen, but if it can be verified, then there should be a push to do a manual verification of ALL the numbers for every election, because these systems are so broken they should not be used at all.
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I hope the Fraud is real (Score:2, Insightful)
Whee, huh?
Don't trust the polls - from an insider (Score:2, Insightful)
- polling questions can be crafted to lead to specific results.
For example, pharmaceutical companies looking for a
specific result set would ask the questions in a way that would
make their specific drug seem desired or appear to be effective.
- most importantly, not all demographics respond to polls. For example,
often lower income people were simply not home because they were
working two jobs. Many people did not speak English well enough
to understand the questions. Polling firms require that all questions
be answered. If the respondent does not understand the question
because the english is too advanced for them, the survey is ditched.
There are other things but I don't remember them for now.
It could be voting machines in part. But my girlfriend's experience has
definitely lead me to question ALL polls.
Re:We go back to when Moses wore short pants (Score:3, Insightful)
Come to think of it, I can see why those Obama ballots would be trickier to load into a voting machine than a Clinton ballot. The pencil graphite moves from one side of the paper to the other, and really throws the balance off. ;-}
I'll choose to believe the more likely explanation that Obama had bigger support in rural precincts, which is where hand counting is more likely.
the people that modded that insightful (Score:4, Insightful)
It's 8 years ago. Get over your Clinton Derangement Syndrome already.
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't hire them 24/7. So what ever they do before 9 am and after 5 pm is not of your concern, and using that as reason to cancel a contract is a breach of contract, and furthermore it is against their right of free association.
That's the strange thing with freedom, it ends as soon as it limits other peoples freedom.
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We go back to when Moses wore short pants (Score:5, Insightful)
Extortion and American Luxury (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a sign of our easy position in the world that we think that 'vote buying' is the worst possible outcome of non-anonymous voting. As another poster said, the real reason to prevent votes from being connected to the voter is that then voters can be extorted.
On the most basic level you have people who physically threaten you; vote this way or we hurt you, your family, your business. Moving up in sophistication, though, you can stand to lose all sorts of things; you didn't vote the company line? No job for you. Worst is that it allows the government that gets elected to single out and quash people who did not vote for it. Oh, you didn't vote for Bush? Well, I hope you want a vacation to Cuba...
In the end the anonymous vote allows us to vote secure in our liberty. This has always been everyone's first priority. It is only a second priority that the vote be accurate and the result a representation of the public will. We are working on how to achieve this second without sacrificing the first.
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These things happen (Score:3, Insightful)
By your reasoning, if an employee seduced my wife and made a website about how he made a cuckold of me and how I'm a big knob I must still employ him, as long as he didn't do these things during working hours?
Re:For heaven's sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
- a devout atheist
PS - sure, i'd even more prefer a scientist who believed in individual liberty, but have you looked at the crop of candidates?
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
and whenever Roland Piquewhatever gets another one of his stories posted I wonder what he's got that I haven't
Re:Extortion and American Luxury (Score:3, Insightful)
At least then I'll have health care!
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are no "electronic voting" machines in NH (Score:2, Insightful)
That happened twice in the same primary? I don't think so.
Re:These things happen (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have interested parties participate in the counting.
It takes many people to count, thus the conspiracy has to be large to have a big effect.
The overall totals can be verified by checking the precints.
It's auditable.
The downside:
It's more expensive because you have to pay those people to count the votes.
It's slower because you have to give those people time to count the votes.
We're talking ELECTION FRAUD, not VOTER FRAUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Election Fraud is tampering with the tabulation or recording of votes and results.
They are very different things.
Re:These things happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama? I like him: he's upbeat, he's charismatic, he's idealistic, he's promising change and unity. All plusses, and on these fronts he's got anyone else beat. Here's the problem: in 2000, a lot of people voted for a candidate who was optimistic, who was likeable, who promised change, and promised to be a uniter, not a divider. And that's gotten our country into a bit of a mess. I'm not saying that Obama is like Bush, just that all those good qualities don't mean he'll necessarily be a good president. Obviously, there are major differences between Obama and Bush: first, I think Obama believes what he says. Second, Obama is an intelligent dude. He's got Al Gore smarts without the nerdiness.
But we're facing serious problems. Iraq's security has improved, but the civil war could return at any moment, because there's no political progress. Afghanistan is still a mess. The U.S. Army has been stretched thin by extended deployments, and ground down by guerilla warfare. The budget deficit is larger than ever, and the economy is looking bad.
Obama offers optimism, but optimism is not a military strategy. He's got hope, but hope is not going to placate the Republicans when he raises taxes, which he will have to do in order to balance the budget. He opposed the war, but now he will have to continue it: we will probably be there for 10 years, no matter what any candidate promises. I like what Obama has to offer, and I'm willing to consider him, but he has to show me that he's up to these challenges, and so far, he hasn't. We need someone with the combination of smarts, experience, and strength to get our country out of this hole. Right now, I think the best man for the job is Hillary Clinton, and that John McCain is a close second. I mean no disrespect to Obama or to you Obama supporters: I know why you like him; I know where you're coming from. I'm just offering my thoughts to explain why "experience" trumped "change" in New Hampshire, despite the polls, and why I feel that people should seriously consider her. Plus, putting Bill back in the White House means 8 years of great Daily Show/Colbert Report material!
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice, the easiest traditional ways of ballot stuffing still work with electronic voting. You can register fake voters, cast votes on the behalf of other people (including dead people), that sort of thing. They attack the determination of whether someone is allowed to cast a vote, not the voting system itself.
Actual, literal, ballot-box stuffing is easier with electronic voting - an attacker can subtract votes easily without needing access to the elections between voting and vote-counting, simply by pre-compromising the system. We have defences against this for traditional ballots, but electronic voting has no way of testing this sort of compromise. (A major issue is the sophistication of attacks that are possible - being simple is an advantage in this case.)
Re:These things happen (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really want people who are too lazy or disinterested to vote to be voting. It just adds noise and the majority of these people will simply vote for the candidate whose name they've heard the most.
Re:These things happen (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, in modern real democracies ballot box stuffing is really very hard indeed, as it should be. Secret ballots are secret to protect the voter from retaliatory actions by the successful candidate. Just look at how the current US administration publicly attacked and excluded companies who supported other political parties, a clear demonstration of why it is necessary. Hell they even required that potential employees detailed which political party they registered to vote with in their employment applications, a clear and gross abuse of power.
Government is all about people, why should there be any machines in the process at all, except of course to bloat corporate profits and to allow a single easy point to corrupt the political process to yet further bloat corporate profits.
Re:Correlation vs. causation (Score:1, Insightful)