See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Vote fraud costs Obama New Hampshire
Source:
sfbayview.com
URL Source: http://www.sfbayview.com/2008011679 ... costs_Obama_New_Hampshire.html
Published: Jan 18, 2008
Author: Kam Williams
Post Date: 2008-01-18 02:04:32 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: Obama, Clinton, Election Fraud
Views: 113
Comments: 6
Vote fraud costs Obama New Hampshire by Kam Williams Wednesday, 16 January 2008 Primary a tale of two tallies If the fix is in, it doesn't matter whether Barack Obama really deserves to be the Democratic nominee, he'll never get a fair chance to compete for the presidency. Debates about whether the junior senator from Illinois is Black enough or whether whites will be willing to vote for an African-American are moot so long as the sanctity of the ballot box can't be guaranteed. The problem is that the Diebold Corp. is at it again, and the voting machine company appears to be already in the process of quietly perpetrating the mother of all vote frauds. In case you forgot, Diebold is the manufacturer of the electronic tabulator which counted the majority of the votes in the last two U.S. presidential elections. I first called for the United Nations to monitor polling places all across the country after Diebold's wholesale disenfranchisement of Blacks in Florida decided the controversial 2000 race. And I reiterated that demand in 2004 after irregularities in Ohio put Bush back in office for another four years. Now, judging by what went down virtually unnoticed in New Hampshire on Jan. 8, we're again in dire need of U.N. observers during the 2008 primary season, just to give the democratic process a chance to unfold untainted by fraud. For while the punditocracy has been busy dubbing Hillary Clinton the "Comeback Kid" and attributing her surprise victory to women rallying to her support in the wake of her eyes welling up on camera, no one's looking for a more plausible explanation than that overly-publicized Muskie moment. The cold hard truth is that on the night of the New Hampshire primary, all the scientifically-conducted exit polls had predicted an Obama two-digit win. Given the +/-4.5 percent margin of error, this means it wasn't a question of whether Barack would win, only by how much. However, everybody forgot that Diebold would be counting the votes electronically in 81 percent of the state's precincts, while the other 19 percent were being tallied by hand. And wouldn't you know, when the results were announced, there was a statistically significant difference between the tallies based on a paper trail and those recorded by Diebold's machines. As reported by a watchdog organization called CheckTheVotes.com, Obama garnered 38 percent of the votes counted by hand, followed by Clinton with 34 percent, Edwards with 17 percent, Richardson with 5 percent and Kucinich with almost 2 percent. By contrast, Diebold's tabulations had Clinton finishing first with a whopping 40 percent, while every other candidate had lower percentages than in the hand-counted districts. The computers had Obama dropping to 35 percent, Edwards to 16 percent, Richardson to 4 percent and Kucinich to 1 percent. Does it seem suspicious to you that all the candidates but Clinton did worse when the votes weren't verified, especially in the wake of the precedent of the prior Diebold debacles? Unless an outcry is raised, and steps are taken immediately to monitor the electronic tallies in the upcoming primaries, it is readily apparent that the only Democratic machine Hillary will need to prevail is the one programmed by Diebold. Editor's note: Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is calling for a recount of Tuesday's New Hampshire primary vote. He says he's making the request because of unexplained differences in hand-counted and machine-counted ballots. Lloyd Kam Williams is a film and book critic, and an attorney and a member of the New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and U.S. Supreme Court bars. He can be reached at kam_williams@hotmail.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#1. To: FOH, Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#0)
www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=2020 DIEBOLD problems arising already from NH… By libertynottyranny | January 17, 2008 Go to BradBlog.com for the latest…. Scores of Votes Mistallied for Every Democratic Candidate… As mentioned last night, in this disturbing article, the early results of the hand counts of one Diebold precinct in Dennis Kucinich’s election contest in New Hampshire are now being posted, as they come in, at this New Hampshire SoS page. As mentioned earlier today, NH SoS Bill Gardner told WMUR in NH that “We did nine of the 12 wards in Manchester, and a lot of the votes were exactly the same…Some went up by a vote or two.” He didn’t, of course, note that a lot of the vote counts (most of them) were off by 5 or more. And now, the rest of the numbers from the rest of the Manchester wards are coming on. And get a load of Ward 5: All of the other candidates seem to have lost votes as well. No clue who received them instead, and must run out to tonight’s Oakland screening of UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections. But thought you’d want to know. WMUR might want to know too. Since their only source seems to be whatever Gardner tells them. They can be contacted here. There are more fresh numbers there, but we haven’t yet had time to review ‘em. Other than that, everything is fine with your election system. Or, as WMUR “reported” at 6pm ET today: “The continuing Democratic primary recount in New Hampshire has not found any voting problems.”
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=2020#comments One Response to “DIEBOLD problems arising already from NH…” 1. thepowerof1 Says: January 17th, 2008 at 11:22 pm look at bill richardson in bedford: 184 votes for diebold 0 votes hand count wtf? is this correct??
Goodnight.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: TwentyTwelve (#2)
#5. To: _______, wudidiz, Original_Intent, christine, FOH, robin (#3)
#6. To: TwentyTwelve, ALL (#5)
Replies to Comment # 6.