Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
European Tribune - What happened in New Hampshire?

Optical Scan
Clinton 91,717 52.9507%
Obama 81,495 47.0493%
Total 173,212

Hand Counted
Clinton 20,889 47.0494%
Obama 23,509 52.9506%
Total 44,398

Smoking gun. Or the coincidence of the millennium.

Has anyone posted any of this to the Obama and Clinton campaigns?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 06:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama cannot call the recount or he will be skewered as a sore loser by the MSM. It has to be the Clinton campaign that calls for a recount. And the reason has been pointed out downthread. Maybe this was planted by Republicans in order to "discover" it after she gets the nomination.

However, it is possible that the actual ballots were tampered with and that a recount will confirm the results.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 07:04:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe this was planted by Republicans in order to "discover" it after she gets the nomination.

That is very possible. But why make the numbers so bizarre, as if whoever did this thought something like that wouldn't be noticed until several months from now (unless they were incompetent)? Wouldn't they want something that they could disguise for a few months? I'm just thinking/typing out loud.

by lychee on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 07:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact is, this is too close to being statistically insignificant. If instead of fixing the numbers to the last digit you only fix it to +- 7 votes, it drops below 95% confidence in one of the scenarios. In the other you just need to go to +- 13 votes.

The scenarios are: estimate the probabilities from the machine counts and assume the hand counts are a random sample, or vice versa.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 07:40:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Plus - if this happened, it would have been a Republican scheme. And Republicans are notorious for not being terribly bright when it comes to science.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 07:46:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was thinking whoever did this was bright enough to doctor the data, but not bright enough to doctor it properly.

The easiest way to steal the election is to just reverse the Obama/Clinton counts on a precinct basis. If you do it in every precinct it even gives you plausible deniability - sorry, computer bug! A human error programming the mappings to the database.

But maybe they thought that's easy to reverse and they really want Clinton to win. So they say okay, let's just tamper with the largest county in the state. They could just have reversed the counts and, given statistical noise, the vote percentages would have been similar but to less than 95% confidence. Being a single county, you'd have to go down to precinct level to show all the precincts are switched.

But maybe they thought they needed to eliminate the discrepancy. In statistical parlance, they worried about a one-tailed chi-square test (misfit) but not about a two-tailed chi-square test (misfit or too-good-to-be-true fit).

I mean, it just takes a pocket calculator to get the "correct" vote counts.

Tampering with the count would mean that a recount would give the win to Obama. Tampering with the ballots would confirm the results, possibly with a 200-vote difference from the initial ones.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, it is possible that the actual ballots were tampered with and that a recount will confirm the results.

This is actually quite important. I want to pull it out and emphasis it.

How are the ballots secured after an election? Black Box Voting seems to have some serious concerns over this.

"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71260.html

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 09:51:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series