Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Kucinich Requests Recount of New Hampshire Ballots

Posted by Manila Ryce, The Largest Minority at 6:07 AM on January 11, 2008.


"This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process," says Kucinich.
2004115272
Hillary + Diebold = New Hampshire Win

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Hillary has not only taken policy advice from the Neocons, but advice on how to "win" elections as well. Exit polls are never wrong, yet they predicted that Gore would win Florida in 2000, that Kerry would win Ohio in 2004, and that Obama would win New Hampshire last week. What's the variable that ties all of these anomalies together? Diebold.

Only 20% of New Hampshire's primary ballots were counted by hand. The other 80% were counted exclusively by Diebold machines. Obama secured his predicted lead on the hand-counted ballots, but Diebold-counted ballots ended up giving the lead to Hillary. Stalin once said, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Or was it John Kerry who said that after he conceded the 2004 election? Well whoever said it, it's Kucinich who has had the courage above his slighted contenders to request that the New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner recount Tuesday's election.

"I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf," Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, "Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days...It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery - not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election."

Also, the reports, allegations, and rumors regarding possible vote-count irregularities have been further fueled by the stunning disparities between various "independent" pre-election polls and the actual election results," Kucinich wrote. "The integrity, credibility, and value of independent polling are separate issues, but they appear to be relevant in the context of New Hampshire's votes."

He added, "Ever since the 2000 election - and even before - the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn't about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It's about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them."

Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, "This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process." No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.

"New Hampshire is in the unique position to address - and, if so determined, rectify - these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation," Kucinich wrote in his letter.

"Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process," said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday's Presidential primary in that state.

You can contact New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner at (603)-271-3242 or at Elections@sos.state.nh.us. Every transfer of these ballots in the chain of custody from person to person must also be documented and proven that nobody else could have accessed them.

It's clear from Disney's lock out of Kucinich from the previous debates that corporations have too much control over our electoral process. They have the power to manipulate everything we see and know about this world, and use that power frequently to their advantage. Government is supposed to check private power, but when the so-called top-tier candidates are owned by this Mickey Mouse operation, there is no accountability. Since they've failed, it's up to you and me. Kucinich can't do it alone. ABC and Diebold would never have robbed us in broad daylight if they didn't think they could get away with it. They've crushed democracy in Florida, Ohio, and now New Hampshire. Don't let your state be next. Demand a recount.

h/t to BradBlog for bringing this to my attention


Porn Star Stormy Daniels Is One Step Closer to Taking on Conservative Blowhard David Vitter
Yesterday Daniels announced that she was forming an exploratory committee.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. May 22, 2009.
Democrats Make Massive Gains as GOP Deteriorates
In seven short years, the American electorate has radically changed.
Post by Thomas B. Edsall. May 21, 2009.
Pressure Mounts on Minnesota Governor to Seat Al Franken
Two-thirds of Minnesotans now "believe it's time for [Coleman] to concede."
Post by Sam Stein. May 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Go Kucinich!
Posted by: anarchofeminist on Jan 11, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's so sad that we even have to think about this kind of corruption in our electoral process, but I think it's there and those that choose to ignore it are "emboldening the enemy" in my opinion. Kucinich will probably be mocked, yet again, for his statements on this issue. Corporate interests are too well funded to allow his kind of honesty and integrity to reach the mainstream on any significant level. Heck, Disney won't even let him participate in their ABC debates. I for one am not pleased that such a large corporation is making choices regarding which candidates are "valid" and which are not.

And no, this isn't "sour grapes" on Kucinich's part. Our democracy is being stolen from us and someone needs to point it out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Go Kucinich! Posted by: crazy carlos
Kucinich Stands Up... Again
Posted by: Xynyx on Jan 11, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, we see that Kucinich is the ONLY candidate with real altruistic purpose... and the only candidate with sufficient spine to say what needs to be said.

The man is an obvious threat. Keeping him off the air because he isn't a serious candidate is the best measured response.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kucinich Stands Up... Again Posted by: mickofcleve
Go Dennis!
Posted by: NeilDeal on Jan 11, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank God there are people out there who are not afraid to demand accountability. I hope that there isn't any tampering, but then I think of what the Republicans have said. They claim that Hillary would be the easiest Democrat nominee to beat. Maybe they're trying to help her along??

I'm going to email Kucinich to express my support!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

samothrellim
Posted by: milltom on Jan 11, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of further concern is that the sales director of the Diebold connected private contracting firm which is supposed to count the ballots in New Hampshire, LHS Associates, is a convicted narcotics peddler, and readily admits that they regularly replace voting machine memory cards at will while elections are going on. See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5537

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's just count them!
Posted by: sliver on Jan 11, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Official results say Clinton got 112,000 votes and Obama got 104,000.

If 20 percent are already hand counted, it wouldn't take long to recount the rest.

It would only take a few groups of people to finish it this weekend. I'm sure you could get enough volunteers and it wouldn't cost much at all. So why would they not do it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's just count them! Posted by: peacefullaim
Excuse me! Have all you liberals/progressives been asleep?
Posted by: leland61 on Jan 11, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suggest that you go to Youtube.com and do a search for Noam Chomsky. Better still search for "Manufacturing Consent" by Dr. Chomsky. Sounds like too many people are just waking up to what Dr. Chomsky documented years and years ago.

This total perversion of the media by the wealthy elite is not something of recent times. It has been going on from the very beginning of the USA.

Has anyone here read "People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" by Howard Zinn? If not why not? Part of the problem for Americans is that they know nothing about history and even less about their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why call the secy of state?
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jan 11, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My understanding is that according to NH law, if a candidate whose name appeared on the ballot demands a recount, then the Secretary of State must comply -- the only issue is who pays the tab, and that gets negotiated between the state and the person making the demand.

It's unclear whether Kucinich filed a formal demand for a recount or just sent a letter urging one. But if he's demanding a recount, then they're bound by law to conduct one.

I'll send an e-mail to his staff and see if I can't nail down that question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why call the secy of state? Posted by: leftoverbacon
» Stament from Kucinich campaign Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Yes Posted by: Joshua Holland
Really? I thought only the Pope ......
Posted by: wavydavy on Jan 11, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was infallible.

Just where did you get the idea, and what evidence do you have to support the idea, that "Exit polls are never wrong"? Have you ever heard of "margin of error"? Did it ever occur to you that people might not tell the truth to pollsters? (For example, Harry Shearer just suggested that, as our civic duty, we should either ignore pollsters or lie to them.)

And nobody has ever determined that Gore lost the Florida vote. In fact, it is generally accepted that he won, and that's why SCOTUS stopped the recount.

If you knew anything at all about statistics, you would know about "statistically normal deviation" -- there is ALWAYS a range of possible outcomes, including some outside the norm. It does not prove anything. If you flipped a coin 10 times and got 10 heads, would you assume someone was manipulating your coin?

I have no doubt that it is possible, and some may have a motive, to tamper with election results. But (a) what concrete evidence do you have, and (b) what possible motive would anyone have to do so?

I think Hanlon's Razor is most appropriate here: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally? TRUST BUT VERIFY Posted by: Christie
FOLLOW DIEBOLD WITH A MANDATORY PAPER TRAIL!
Posted by: kunndunn on Jan 11, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can we Americans, in all good conscience, monitor the fairness of elections in other coutnries, when we can't even ensure transparency of fair elections in our own country?
What happen to the two professors/scientists who last week came up with a full-proof way to demand a matching paper trail for every vote cast on Diebold?
People, let's get it right. We have already had the last two Presidential elections stolen by outright Republican- admitting fraud.
Let's make sure that our 44th President is not elected due to crookery. In Goodwill, a concerned former Poltical Science Teacher.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so fast....
Posted by: SGinNYC on Jan 11, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for vigilance against voter fraud, but let's not get out of control here. Even "Brad" said:
"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." (source: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530), words of caution that escape Manila Ryce's article. Diebold deserves extra scrutiny, no doubt. But the superficial analysis of higher Clinton voter performance correlating with Diebold precincts is not enough to substantiate such accusations; a classic "third variable" is also at play (Clinton's margin was higher in more densely populated parts of New Hampshire--the same places where machines replace paper ballots).

Voter fraud is a serious allegation, that SHOULD be addressed; however, serious allegations demand responsible handling. I don't think this article was sufficiently responsible--independent journalism should not slant like MSM but meet a higher standard!!

[Full disclosure: I am a Clinton supporter]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not so fast.... Posted by: VZEQICVA
I'M ALL FOR A RECOUNT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 11, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If these machines are anything but accurate we should know about it and just get rid of them. It doesn't matter who won or lost. We have to get it right. There's too much on the line to worry about hurt feelings. This is what should have happened in 2000. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This demonstrates why Kucinich needs to stay in the race
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 11, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's the only one who will tackle just about any issue - without running it by his publicists and media managers first. Thanks to that stance, he gets locked out of the ABC debates - but what he says is absolutely true:

"He added, "Ever since the 2000 election - and even before - the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn't about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It's about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them."

Well put.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does anyone know??
Posted by: crazy carlos on Jan 11, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this Diebolt voting machine is using an Analog/Digital circuit board--especially the TRS-80 card (also known as the Trash -80 which was the circuit board used in the catasrophe known as Commodore 64--64 K memory!)

As an outside Telecommunications Consultant in the late 60's and early 70's we had occasion to run across RFP submissions from various vendors using this as the machines brains. After about 2 years we refused to even present their proposals to our clients because of inaccuracies, unreliability, and volitality--and as memory serves me as to its cofiguration very easy to be manipulited. (Incidently, for those who may have had run-ins with the police, the TRS-80 is the very heart of the Intoxilyzer 5000's by CMI. which is used in courts as unchallenged evidence of intoxication)

If this Diebolt machine is an Analog/Digital hybrid--look out. In my opinion, it is total junk. Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Does anyone know?? Posted by: herronsmith
let's not pretend vote tampering hasn't been PROVEN 2000 & 2004
Posted by: JustHisWordsdotcom on Jan 11, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» What Link?? Posted by: crazy carlos
» What link? Posted by: saywhat
I support Edwards - and have argued with DK supporters frequently of late
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jan 11, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but I have to give him a big hand for this one!

To me, coming out of the 00 and o4 elections, this was THE issue. What difference candidates other positions if there is no integrity of the ballot?

I have been stupefied by the dawdling of the Democratic majority in congress and their failure to tackle this gigantic, fundamental, earth-shaking (insert favorite adjective here) problem - and have concluded that our ranks must be well populated by mentally challenged idiots.

Well done, Dennis!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compromised voting
Posted by: herbal on Jan 11, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Electoral process has always been flawed; but never in a systemic way as with machines that are hackable by insiders. My first vote for Eldridge Cleaver was not counted in Boulder CO in 1968. Big deal. But it is a big deal for an 18 year old first timer, and no wonder the young are so cynical and apathetic. If they voted en masse we could depend on a decisive youth vote.

So more power to a great man, Dennis Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is easy to fake results with Diebold scan machines
Posted by: UnoDeiTreiOrsi on Jan 12, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is easy to change the results of an election with Diebold scan machines...that is, unless, somebody demands a recount. I was the chairman of a small volunteer committee that did a formal review of the security flaws of the diebold scan machines used by San Francisco at the request of the San Francisco Board of Elections and we determined that without proper safeguards it was incredibly easy for an elections department insider to change the election results any way they pleased. I don't want to go into too many details but the following was true 3 years ago in SF, and could still be true today:
1) Unless there is a formal procedure for verifying that the machine is set to zero before the election it is very easy to preload the machine with votes.
2) Unless the files transfered by the machines to the central tabulating place are under the strictest security measures, it is a trivial matter to change vote tallies with either a robot, virus or by hand editing. At least as of 3 years ago, as hard as it is to believe, these files were not encrypted and were in text format. I suspect they still are today in most, if not all locations where these machines are used.

There are quite a number of other flaws as well, which can be seen in my report presented to the San Francisco Elections Commission. In summary, unless there is at least a statistical recount done with EVERY election (i.e a recount of randomly selected precincts, truly random, selected after the fact) , every election using this tabulating method is suspect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]