Thu Jan 10th, 2008 at 10:40:32 PM EST
Can Democrats count? Looks like there may be some irregularities in the NH primary.
7 Point Swing for Clinton Over Obama in NH's Diebold Precincts
Analaysis Shows Candidates 'Positions Swapped' Where Ballots Counted by Hand Versus 'Counted' by Machine...
I'm not sure why people think computers are a safe way to conduct an election. At least with paper ballots the larger the fraud the more people who must be in on it.
Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH
Even the Exit Polls showed that Obama should have won, according to Chris Matthews on Hardball today. It's the first specific indication that we've seen that the raw, unadjusted Exit Poll data, which only corporate mainstream media folks, not mere mortals, are allowed to see, confirmed all of the pre-election polling which predicted an Obama win.
Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount in the interest of election integrity
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.
The angryarab has a possible explanation.
(Found originally from a post by b in Moon of Alabama)
Race and Voting behavior. The media were surprised with the results yesterday. They should not have. People who study voting behavior note that voters often lie about their electoral intentions especially when race is involved. White voters inflate their desire to vote for a black candidate and the black candidate almost always capture less of the white vote than was previously projected by opinion polls or even by exit polls. When Doug Wilder was first elected as the first black governor, he received far less of the white vote than was projected in opinion surveys. Similarly, when the Nazi David Duke ran governor he captured more of the white vote than was projected before the election. So voters often register their responses fearing that they may be perceived as racist. People who study voter behavior in UK have also noticed that Thatcher was receiving more support in the 1980s than was projected in opinion surveys: many young British voters were relectant to tell pollster of their intentions to vote for her because it was not cool among the young to voter for a Conservative candidate.
Let's briefly take a trip down memory lane to 2004.
In the 2004 U.S. presidential election there were systematic flaws and data irregularities characteristic of fraudulent elections, which affected the outcome of both the presidential and local elections. Significant exit poll and data irregularities were present, as well as complaints were made that voting was not conducted equally for all citizens. For example, uneven voting machine distribution lead to long voting lines and disenfranchisement.
Of course vote fraud is just one of many problems with the US electoral system. There are other ways that are potentially safer than risking voter fraud.
Gerrymandering is a big pastime, and it does not seem to get the same media attention.
The best way to win elections is to prevent people from voting for the wrong party. The method that is currently being tried is to require picture id in order to vote. This will affect the poor significantly more than the rich. It should be great for disenfranchising large numbers of Democrats.
Two major Supreme Court cases have been heard this week, and on each of them, it does not appear that the side of justice and the Constitution will be victorious.
I will avoid talking about the case where the courts may decide that cruel or unusual punishment is ok by them. It's off topic.
In the other big case, the ruling on Indiana's voter ID law, the Court again appeared unswayed by arguments about equal protection and the deliberate efforts to suppress voter turnout.
Only two Justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens -- even hinted at the real-world fact that the photo ID law in Indiana is at the heart of a bitter, ongoing contest reaching well beyond Indiana. It is a dispute between Republicans worried over election fraud supposedly generated by Democrats to pad their votes, and Democrats worried over voter suppression supposedly promoted by Republicans to cut down their opposition. The abiding question at the end: can a decision be written that does not itself sound like a political, rather than a judicial, tract? Can the Court, in short, avoid at least the appearance of another Bush v. Gore? [...]
As has been said many times, this is a solution without a problem. The Indiana secretary of state, when pressed, could not come up with one documented instance of voter fraud in his state. Never has so much attention been paid to a crime that has not been proven to be committed. The agenda is as transparent as tissue paper.
You don't have to rig the election if only one side is allowed to vote in the first place.
So where do Americans go to from here?