New Hampshire Recount Set For January 16th

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in New Hampshire

I know the Ron Paul supporters really wanted this, and I honest don’t really think we’re going to find out anything new, but this is the transparency of democracy in action. For that reason alone I’m glad to see this is happening.

From Huff Post:

The recounts will begin on January 16, at a time and location to be announced after the state has completed an estimate of the cost and received payment based on that estimate. [...]

ChecktheVotes is one of the websites that sprung up last week, parsing the primary numbers, specifically the difference between the hand-counted and machine-counted votes (the site, created by a Ron Paul supporter, was originally called www.ronrox.com, but the name was changed once it began to receive thousands of visitors). Using numbers from Politico, the site compares the percentage of the overall vote a candidate received by machine counts vs. the percentage received from hand counts. For example, according to the numbers on the site, John McCain received 36.419% of the total votes counted by machine and 39.303% of the total votes counted by hand. This results in a presumed “loss” of 2.884% of the from the machine count. [...]

The question, though, is whether these differences mean anything. Is there any reason why the hand-count and the machine count should be exactly the same? The large towns in New Hampshire generally use the AccuVote machine, while the small towns use hand-counts. It would seem that voters in small towns and voters in large towns might have very different concerns, with candidates that appeal in large population centers failing in small towns. Look at the Romney example. Romney did better overall with the machine count vote than he did with the hand count. Was that due to someone hacking the vote in Romney’s favor? Did the majority of the machines suffer malfunctions that gave him extra votes? Or was it more about the candidate and the demographics? It’s not a huge leap to think that Romney’s big business image just didn’t play well in small towns, leading to his poor results in the hand counts.

But to all the Ron Paul supporters, once this recount is done will you be okay with the results? I’d like to hear an answer now, so if they come back with pretty much the same numbers, we don’t keep hearing the same conspiracy stuff.

Agreed?


This entry was posted on Monday, January 14th, 2008 and is filed under New Hampshire. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

20 Responses to “New Hampshire Recount Set For January 16th”

  1. Tony Lambiris Says:

    I’ll only be satisfied if the recount is done under public scrutiny and not behind closed doors. There has to be a list of people responsible for the recount that can be held accountable either way the coin falls.

  2. Michael Burgos Says:

    I think that a recount is pretty much useless, and does nothing more then cost the tax payers money. This is of course against everything that Ron Paul stands for. For Ron Paul to succeed supporters and Dr Paul need to focus on the issues. When Dr Paul shows up for a debate, and he is not given a chance to rebut speak up and say his view.
    When he is asked a dumb question that has no relevance with the rest of the debate on the playing field “i.e. stupid questions like elect-ability, or Truthers” he needs to say strait and simple this has no bearing on the current debate, and fire back with “I’m surprised that “you” as a professional journalist only having the opportunity to ask a few questions to each candidate would waste it on a stupid question like that, now can we get back to the debate please?” The supporters of Ron Paul (I am a supporter) need to learn to not act so wacko, it’s great to be enthusiastic about your candidate but when you bash others, and cry “foul” all we do is serve to prove the main stream media right, and then Dr Paul’s message doesn’t get out to those that matter and that is actual VOTERS. Good luck to all of the candidates and I hope that when all is said and done the right choice for America is made and not our Party, or our Candidate.

  3. Kevin Houston Says:

    If it’s done under observation and it’s a real hand count, not just running the ballots through the same inaccu-vote scanners, then yes, agreed.

    Just for the record, I don’t think Ron Paul won, But I suspect he beat Giuliani (again)

    BTW, Justin, are you willing to concede that telephone surveys 6 months in advance are a lousy way to determine “viability”?

  4. Jack Says:

    Although supporters may believe one thing, I just want to make sure nobody thinks Ron Paul wants a recount.
    ———————————————————-
    After a careful investigation, I have decided against seeking a recount in New Hampshire. I am confident that not asking for a recount is the right decision.

    I carefully considered the arguments for and against a recount before instructing my campaign staff not to pursue it. Without a firm belief that vote fraud had taken place, and without the possibility that a recount would have increased the chances for success of our campaign, a recount would have diverted campaign resources, time, and energy away from crucial battles elsewhere.

    We have taken concerns about vote fraud seriously. In Iowa, campaign volunteers carefully monitored the caucuses. Campaign staff placed Paul supporters in every precinct to watch and verify the voting and count. We had supporters phone in results from their precincts to a campaign hotline while others ensured that those numbers were reflected on the official display board at the Polk County Convention Center. The numbers our caucus watchers reported agreed with the official tally, and both results also aligned with the campaign’s internal polling. In relatively pro-Paul counties, our sampling pegged support at 11.5%. This is consistent with an overall 10% finish for the entire state.

    In New Hampshire, while I would have hoped for a better result than eight percent, I am convinced that vote fraud played no role in this result. Rumors of vote fraud were investigated, and in the end they proved to be the result of errors in early media reports that were not reflected in the official numbers. In one notable case, when a campaign staff member contacted an individual who had on the evening of January 8 claimed that his vote had not been counted, the person said that he had made a mistake and that the next morning the error in reporting on a newspaper website had been corrected both in the media and — most importantly — in the official tally.

    Many have expressed concerns that those ballots counted by machine yielded a 2% lower total than those counted by hand. However, machine counted vote totals were more than 2% lower for both John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Hand counted votes were more likely to be cast in rural areas. Results almost always vary between urban and rural areas.

    My campaign staff and I have analyzed the numbers in New Hampshire and I have reached the conclusion that it was the high turnout — not vote fraud or counting errors — that left us with eight percent of the vote. Our total vote count of over 18,000 votes was well within what we projected given the efforts of our extensive statewide get-out-the-vote program, giving me no reason to believe that vote fraud played any role in the results of the Granite State’s primary.

    In both Iowa and New Hampshire there is much to be proud of. Taking both states together, I am honored that over 30,000 people cast their vote for me — more than either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson. Unlike many other candidates’ efforts, our campaign for freedom is growing and our message is spreading.

    Now is the time to redouble our efforts. Our resources must be spent on the upcoming primaries and caucuses, and on ensuring that, with your help, we organize every state yet to vote with our Precinct Leaders program.

    We can’t win primaries and caucuses that have already happened — but we can win those yet to come. To become the Republican presidential nominee, a candidate must have 1,191 delegates. Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire determined only 32 delegates, so we have much opportunity remaining.

    Today, I ask you to join me in focusing on the battles ahead as we continue our fight for liberty and our Constitution.

    Sincerely,

    Ron Paul

  5. Mimi Says:

    Ron Paul did not ask for a recount nor did the majority of his supporters, but with all the problems with the scanners, it’s a good idea. It doesn’t matter who one supports, if there is vote fraud, we should all ask for a recount. As a matter of fact, it’s not a bad idea to go back to hand counting all ballots.

  6. Tony Lambiris Says:

    From what I’ve been hearing, is that it’s going to be an official hand-count, they won’t re-run them through machines. I’m not sure who is going to be in charge of the hand count, but it appears the electronic tabulation is out-sourced by a private firm called LHS Associates, sub-contractor to Diebold. If they have any part in the hand-count, we have cause for much concern.

    Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

  7. Tom Courbat Says:

    Where have the ballots been since election night? What has been the “chain of custody”? Has anyone who might have any reason to be concerned about the recount had access to the ballots?

    These are not idle questions. In a court of law, “chain of custody” of the evidence is paramount. It MUST be secure. So, if we can’t be assured, with actual evidence, that the ballots have been secure the entire time, we cannot trust the results of the hand count.

    So no, we WON”T be satisfied and go away unless the ballots have been protected the entire time.

  8. Jonny Says:

    As a non-conspiracy-theorist Ron Paul supporter, I can tell you that you won’t get any gripes from me. I’m with the official campaign on this one, but I do think it will be good to get an official recount all the same.

  9. Cody Peeples Says:

    The recount is an interesting aside. I’d hope the Ron Paul supporters were spending their time and energy calmly engaging people rather than on recounting votes in a state where our candidate got 5th place. I’m sure they have their reasons, but I don’t pretend to understand them.

    It seems to me that staying focused on the awesome energy that we saw in the post-primary rally would be better. There are too many votes and delegates yet to come to expend resources with this recounting mess, in my opinion.

    Peace,
    Cody Peeples

  10. Justin Says:

    This is a GOOD THING. With the huge discrepancies in hand vs electronic votes it will be good to put the diebolds under scrutiny. It should have been done in 2000 and 2004, but better late than never.

    Michael: it costs the candidates money, not the tax payers.

  11. Shohadaku Says:

    HEY MICHAEL!!!!

    This recount will not cost taxpayers anything!
    The CANDIDATES CALLING FOR IT PAY!

    As for being satisfied?
    As long as the recount isn’t a scam itself.
    UNDERSTAND Debold is run by FELONS. Yes Convicted Felons. Research this please. Research that Debold also have been known to print EXTRA illegal ballots. We need to make sure you have a trail of everywhere those votes are handled.
    Personally I think the recount will end up being more lies. I am sure if a fraud was planned they knew to cover their tracks. Good luck to those people watching over this with good intentions. Lets hope our REPUBLIC can still function.
    Watch zeitgeistmovie.com and please…please Wake up America.

  12. Polimom Says:

    I absolutely agree that transparency in the voting process is crucial.

    It’s worth noting a couple of things, though:

    1. The recount was requested by (initially) Dennis Kucinich, and he’s apparently been joined by Albert Howard (a GOP candidate I’d never heard of until this moment).

    2. This is apparently not funded by taxpayers. NH requires the candidates requesting the recount to pay for it.

  13. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Supporters Funding New Hampshire Recount? Says:

    [...] know some of you commented in my post the other day that you were following the campaign’s line that a recount wasn’t [...]

  14. Big Dipper Says:

    I do not trust electronic voting or counting. There is a good reason to have a papertrail in elections.
    It also gives more excitement waiting for the results….

  15. asdf Says:

    Sorry not agreed! The only acceptable vote is fully transparent with paper ballots and no convicted felons running things. See http://blackboxvoting.org

    Your site is on *ignore* list, k thx!!!

  16. William Says:

    Ron Paul Campaign Concerned About Incorrect Caucus Location Information Provided by the Nevada State Republican Party

    wwwDOTkolotvDOTcom/home/headlines/13861937.html

  17. William(again sorry) Says:

    Ron Paul Campaign Concerned About Incorrect Caucus Location Information Provided by the Nevada State Republican Party

    http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/13861937.html

  18. RE: If I was a NH voter I would be PISSED!!!!!!! Says:

    LINKS TO MEDIA OUTLETS
    http://www.nhliving.com/media/index.shtml

    The guy in this video looks like he has had electric shock treatments.

  19. RE: If I was a NH voter I would be PISSED!!!!!!! Says:

    sorry its this one

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

  20. If I was a NH voter I would be PISSED!!!!!!! Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: