Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Taking over all the paper ballots in New Hampshire would require a huge conspiracy if it was at all possible. If such a conspiracy could exist it would be almost impossible for it not to leak out. And who would take all that trouble for the Democratic New Hampshire primary? If the Clinton camp did that and word came out she would be finished. For the Republicans, the risk seems hardly worth the reward. Can anyone be so sure be that Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate?
In my gut, there is more of a possibility that Cheney was behind 9/11 than that there was vote fraud in New Hampshire. On the other hand, did you see the way WT#7 fell?

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 08:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I'm hoping -- that doctoring the actual ballots would simply be too big a job.

I'm not sure about Tower 7, but I don't believe in the whole 9/11 conspiracy.  The evidence I've seen points to it being what we saw, -- a terrorist attack -- and the amount of coordinating necessary would be impossible for the feds.

It's a bit like the line that "Mac guy" has in "Live Free or Die Hard" when Bruce Willis's character suggests the government must have ways of dealing with the Firesale attack on the nation's infrastructure: "It took FEMA four days to get water to the Superdome."

So, no, I don't believe it's possible for the feds to have done it.  Plus, the "Truthers" are pricks.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 08:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not only hacking computers. It's taking control of the physical ballots and changing them, not a simple task. And they are counting now! If Dennis K. is satisfied, then I'll be satisfied.
I haven't mentioned what this would do for the reputation of New Hampshire which prides itself in being the first primary in the country. (This may change anyway.)

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 09:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, they're counting now.  Apparently Kucinich paid for the two largest counties (Hillsborough and Rockingham), which would include the "big" cities of Manchester, Nashua, and others.  This is where EDA also suggested the fraud likely took place, since we have such massive changes between hand- and machine-counted votes -- a complete flip in Hillsborough from Obama to Clinton, which itself would be enough to overturn the result, even leaving aside the other counties.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drew J Jones:
That's what I'm hoping -- that doctoring the actual ballots would simply be too big a job.

You don't doctor the ballots. Unless I'm missing something, you can simply swap whole boxes of them with boxes full of the results you want after the election.

The original machine counted ballot shows the results you want. Then when there's a recount, the paper trail also shows the results you want.

I'm not sure how strong paper ballot security is, but the only way to keep it watertight is to have representatives from both parties and at least one indepedent observer watching the boxes all the way from the initial ballot to final count to storage. Storage has to be sealed, vetted for political independence, and secure.

I think you'll find few, if any, of these measures were in place in NH.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the sound of it from Harris, it seems to depend on where you are in New Hampshire.  The state has laws and guidelines, but I think a lot of the decisions are made at the local level, which is deeply troubling, since the public doesn't pay a sufficient amount of attention to state and local politics.  Some of them seem to be secure, while others don't.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If such a conspiracy could exist it would be almost impossible for it not to leak out. And who would take all that trouble for the Democratic New Hampshire primary? If the Clinton camp did that and word came out she would be finished. For the Republicans, the risk seems hardly worth the reward. Can anyone be so sure be that Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate?

Last bit, first: Yes, the fundamentals on Clinton's candidacy are extremely weak, while those on Edwards and Obama are unusually strong.  Second: Hacking computers doesn't necessitate a massive conspiracy.  It is, as I understand it, sickeningly easy for anyone with even basic programming skills.

Taking the trouble makes sense.  It was being built as "Clinton finished off in New Hampshire."  She'd been humiliated in Iowa, not only getting her rear end kicked by Obama but suffering the indignity of losing to the slack-jawed yokel candidate, Edwards.  That matters a great deal to undecideds who are looking at these candidates, particularly since voters seem to like Obama and Edwards more than Clinton, but are pulled to Clinton based upon experience (via Bubba) and their memories of the '90s.

Now, instead of Clinton being finished off, the entire narrative has changed.  (My personal theory was that stopping Clinton in Iowa was an absolute necessity, and that stopping her in New Hampshire was probably a necessity.)  Now we're back to Hillary As Front-Runner, with Edwards ignored to the point of becoming almost irrelevant and Obama bogged down in this race-baiting garbage.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 09:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Second: Hacking computers doesn't necessitate a massive conspiracy.  It is, as I understand it, sickeningly easy for anyone with even basic programming skills.

Yeah, but the point you are answering is that taking control of and subverting the paper ballots was what would require the massive, impossible-to-conceal conspiracy.

Computers (these ones at least) are easy. Ballots are hard.

Regards
Luke


-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
American history you know all it takes is an easy-to-hide conspiracy.  

Yeah, there were doubts.  And there will be doubts after this is over.  But unless the fraud team has REALLY screwed up, there won't be proof.  

Well, here's hoping I'm wrong.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 04:07:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You only need to do it in the largest municipality, or even the largest single ward in the state, really.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 09:03:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If that would be so, statistical analysis would have sput out one single ward that is off, rather than find a debated effect across-the-board.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look at the chart I made of the county-level effect. No county shows a vote reversal except for Hillsborough, which is the largest county of all.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But all but two counties show a machine-counted vote surplus, and Coös County displays a difference as big as Hillsborough.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I discuss this in the other thread:
Let's do a nonparametric test here. We observe that only two of the ten counties show machine counts favouring Obama. What are the odds of that? This is like tossing a two-headed coin (Clinton on one side, Obama on the other) ten times and getting two or fewer Obamas. The odds of this are 1 + 10 + 10 * 9 /2 divided by 2 to the 10th power, or 56/1024, or 7/128, or about 1/18. This is not quite significant at 95%. Moreover, it would be equally suspicious if machines favoured Clinton in only two counties or less. But for a two-sided alternative the odds of an extreme result are 1/9, so not quite significant even at 90%.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's the relevance?

Maybe if the hypothesis is that there was vote reversal in a single county, the odds to calculate is of Obama ahead only in 3. But I don't think such a calculation is realistic by using a binary variable (Obama ahead/Clinton ahead).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is difference from the question of who's ahead. It's the question of which direction the machine effect goes. There are counties in which the machines don't change the lead, but here I'm looking at how many times the machines favour obama or Clinton (regardless of whether it is by enough to change the lead). In fact, the lead only changes in 3 out of the 10 counties. But to study the odds of the lead changing you need a model of the average lead and the variability of the vote, so it is no longer a nonparametric test.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series