.gif "IP Gear")
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 127
so i was doing some reading since a bunch of ron pauls vids on youtube seem to have comments from people in NH saying they voted for the man and that their votes werent counted. i did a search on google and came up with tons! check this link out and read the comments at the bottom seems fishy to me i mean even if he didnt win the vote total its not being done fair thats for sure!
**broken link removed**
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines
Posted January 9th, 2008 by boston911truth.org
Ron Paul Votes Not Counted In New Hampshire District
Vote fraud confirmed, Clinton reversed mammoth pre-polling deficit to beat Obama, Diebold machines aid Giuliani, Romney
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines, while confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district were not even counted.
According to a voter in Sutton, New Hampshire, three of her family members voted for Ron Paul, yet when she checked the voting map on the Politico website, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map still says zero votes for Ron Paul as you can see below.
CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT
It's not as if Sutton had a handful of voters like some other districts - a total of 386 people voted yet we are led to believe that not one voted for Ron Paul? Judging by the Iowa results, around 10% of residents would be expected to vote for the Congressman, returning a total of around 38 votes in this district. Let's be ultra-conservative and say just 5% support Paul - he'd still get 19 votes - but he got absolutely none whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this picture?
Greenville also tallied 144 votes yet not one for Congressman Paul.
Anyone else in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul needs to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote.
Diebold voting machines also did Congressman Paul no favors last night - compared to hand counted ballots Giuliani gained just short of 0.5% from electronic voting whereas Paul lost over 2%, which was the difference between finishing 4th and 5th, as this graph documents.
Mitt Romney profited the most from the Diebold swing, he received 7% more votes compared to hand counted ballots.
In the Democratic race the Diebold voting machines clearly swung the primary in Hillary Clinton's favor at the expense of Barack Obama, who had a commanding lead over the New York Senator going into the contest.
Zogby polling numbers had Obama leading Clinton by a whopping 42/29 per cent, yet Clinton eventually took the primary by three per cent.
"If I was Barack Obama, I'd certainly not have conceded this election this quickly," writes The Brad Blog. "I'm not quite sure what he was thinking. And as far as offering an indication of whether he understands how these systems work, and the necessity of making sure that votes are counted, and counted accurately, it does not offer a great deal of confidence at this hour."
"While I have no evidence at this time --- let me repeat, no evidence at this time --- of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private company --- and a less-than-respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post --- runs the entire process."
Clinton would not have beat Obama without the aid of Diebold voting machines. In precincts where electronic voting machines were used, Clinton got a 7% swing over Obama, having gained 5% in comparison to hand-counted ballots and Obama losing 2%.
As we reported yesterday, the contract for programming all of New Hampshire's Diebold voting machines, which combined counted 81 per cent of the vote yesterday, is owned by LHS Associates, whose owner John Silvestro has gone to great lengths to deflect accusations that the machines can easily be rigged.
After purchasing a Diebold 1.94w machine, the same system used in New Hampshire, a computer repair shop employee picked at random by Black Box Voting was able to zero in on the system's vulnerable memory card within just ten minutes. Hacking expert Harri Hursti testified in front of the New Hampshire legislature that the machines were wide open to fraud.
* boston911truth.org's blog
* Login or register to post comments
Comments
1 day ago, Kali said:
if you wanna watch how corrupted diebold really is, go here: diebold scam
* Login or register to post comments
1 day ago, tyranny said:
The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count. An entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero. Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.
* Login or register to post comments
1 day ago, Zhiroc said:
Well, I'm not terribly surprised by the mistake. It seems like such happens a lot when results are sent in.
However, let's talk about the main allegation about machine fraud. I know our location uses an optical scanner system, and I presume that this is the same system in use elsewhere. Thus, there is a paper trail if someone could be convinced to do a manual recount.
Barring that, let's examine the exit polling. You can see this at a number of sites (all the same, as they use a pooled organization to gather it). Here's a link to CNN's:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHD...
Unfortunately, they don't give absolute results, but let's take Vote by Gender. The breakdown is 43% male, 57% female. Further, it tells you that Clinton got 29% of the males, and 46% of the females. You're given how many respondents in the poll, so you could turn these into absolute numbers, but you can figure out the percentages simply by multiplying the fraction of each gender by the vote, then summing. So, for Clinton:
(0.43 * 0.29) + (0.57 * 0.46) = 0.3869 = ~39%
Clinton's (almost) final voting percentage was 39%.
Likewise, you can do the same for Obama, who got 40% of the males, and 34% of the females:
(0.43 * 0.40) + (0.57 * 0.34) = 0.3658 = ~37%
Obama's (almost) final voting percentage was 36%.
If you question my math, there's another question that (almost) gives the direct answer. Go to Vote by Race. 95% were white, and only 1% of the other 4. Apparently, this is too small a sample to have any results, so we can just read the results for whites: 39% Clinton, 36% Obama.
Thus, the exit poll results duplicate the actuals to within a percent. Now, this is not proof that the vote was accurate. After all, the exit poll seemed hardly scientific: a pollster was asking people leaving if they wanted to participate. The sample size was only 1955, or around 0.4%. Also, of course if you postulate fraud with the machine counts, you could do the same for the exit poll. However, it seemed unlikely from the forms used that these exit polls were machine counted.
But that being the case, I'd have to say that the exit polling results do not support the assertion that the actual vote tallies were significantly different from reality
* Login or register to post comments
Related Content
* Blog roundup for January 10
* FAP712: Retraction, FAFSA process, student loan interest tax deduction
* Why Hillary won
* Silence Does Not Make Change
* Jackson Blue Hosts the Boston.TV Beat!
* Terms & Conditions
* Contact Us
* Report Abuse
**broken link removed**
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines
Posted January 9th, 2008 by boston911truth.org
Ron Paul Votes Not Counted In New Hampshire District
Vote fraud confirmed, Clinton reversed mammoth pre-polling deficit to beat Obama, Diebold machines aid Giuliani, Romney
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines, while confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district were not even counted.
According to a voter in Sutton, New Hampshire, three of her family members voted for Ron Paul, yet when she checked the voting map on the Politico website, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map still says zero votes for Ron Paul as you can see below.
CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT
It's not as if Sutton had a handful of voters like some other districts - a total of 386 people voted yet we are led to believe that not one voted for Ron Paul? Judging by the Iowa results, around 10% of residents would be expected to vote for the Congressman, returning a total of around 38 votes in this district. Let's be ultra-conservative and say just 5% support Paul - he'd still get 19 votes - but he got absolutely none whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this picture?
Greenville also tallied 144 votes yet not one for Congressman Paul.
Anyone else in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul needs to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote.
Diebold voting machines also did Congressman Paul no favors last night - compared to hand counted ballots Giuliani gained just short of 0.5% from electronic voting whereas Paul lost over 2%, which was the difference between finishing 4th and 5th, as this graph documents.
Mitt Romney profited the most from the Diebold swing, he received 7% more votes compared to hand counted ballots.
In the Democratic race the Diebold voting machines clearly swung the primary in Hillary Clinton's favor at the expense of Barack Obama, who had a commanding lead over the New York Senator going into the contest.
Zogby polling numbers had Obama leading Clinton by a whopping 42/29 per cent, yet Clinton eventually took the primary by three per cent.
"If I was Barack Obama, I'd certainly not have conceded this election this quickly," writes The Brad Blog. "I'm not quite sure what he was thinking. And as far as offering an indication of whether he understands how these systems work, and the necessity of making sure that votes are counted, and counted accurately, it does not offer a great deal of confidence at this hour."
"While I have no evidence at this time --- let me repeat, no evidence at this time --- of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private company --- and a less-than-respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post --- runs the entire process."
Clinton would not have beat Obama without the aid of Diebold voting machines. In precincts where electronic voting machines were used, Clinton got a 7% swing over Obama, having gained 5% in comparison to hand-counted ballots and Obama losing 2%.
As we reported yesterday, the contract for programming all of New Hampshire's Diebold voting machines, which combined counted 81 per cent of the vote yesterday, is owned by LHS Associates, whose owner John Silvestro has gone to great lengths to deflect accusations that the machines can easily be rigged.
After purchasing a Diebold 1.94w machine, the same system used in New Hampshire, a computer repair shop employee picked at random by Black Box Voting was able to zero in on the system's vulnerable memory card within just ten minutes. Hacking expert Harri Hursti testified in front of the New Hampshire legislature that the machines were wide open to fraud.
* boston911truth.org's blog
* Login or register to post comments
Comments
1 day ago, Kali said:
if you wanna watch how corrupted diebold really is, go here: diebold scam
* Login or register to post comments
1 day ago, tyranny said:
The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count. An entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero. Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.
* Login or register to post comments
1 day ago, Zhiroc said:
Well, I'm not terribly surprised by the mistake. It seems like such happens a lot when results are sent in.
However, let's talk about the main allegation about machine fraud. I know our location uses an optical scanner system, and I presume that this is the same system in use elsewhere. Thus, there is a paper trail if someone could be convinced to do a manual recount.
Barring that, let's examine the exit polling. You can see this at a number of sites (all the same, as they use a pooled organization to gather it). Here's a link to CNN's:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHD...
Unfortunately, they don't give absolute results, but let's take Vote by Gender. The breakdown is 43% male, 57% female. Further, it tells you that Clinton got 29% of the males, and 46% of the females. You're given how many respondents in the poll, so you could turn these into absolute numbers, but you can figure out the percentages simply by multiplying the fraction of each gender by the vote, then summing. So, for Clinton:
(0.43 * 0.29) + (0.57 * 0.46) = 0.3869 = ~39%
Clinton's (almost) final voting percentage was 39%.
Likewise, you can do the same for Obama, who got 40% of the males, and 34% of the females:
(0.43 * 0.40) + (0.57 * 0.34) = 0.3658 = ~37%
Obama's (almost) final voting percentage was 36%.
If you question my math, there's another question that (almost) gives the direct answer. Go to Vote by Race. 95% were white, and only 1% of the other 4. Apparently, this is too small a sample to have any results, so we can just read the results for whites: 39% Clinton, 36% Obama.
Thus, the exit poll results duplicate the actuals to within a percent. Now, this is not proof that the vote was accurate. After all, the exit poll seemed hardly scientific: a pollster was asking people leaving if they wanted to participate. The sample size was only 1955, or around 0.4%. Also, of course if you postulate fraud with the machine counts, you could do the same for the exit poll. However, it seemed unlikely from the forms used that these exit polls were machine counted.
But that being the case, I'd have to say that the exit polling results do not support the assertion that the actual vote tallies were significantly different from reality
* Login or register to post comments
Related Content
* Blog roundup for January 10
* FAP712: Retraction, FAFSA process, student loan interest tax deduction
* Why Hillary won
* Silence Does Not Make Change
* Jackson Blue Hosts the Boston.TV Beat!
* Terms & Conditions
* Contact Us
* Report Abuse
