Stolen Election? Doubtful; but we need Verification

While DHinMI's front-page story makes a good case as for demographics explaining irregularities in the NH voting results, the story fails to discuss the need for Verified Voting.  We've come along way since 2000, currently there are lots of states in the "green", but NH isn't one of them.  Although NH has a voter-verifiable paper record, they lack a regular, random sample, manual audit of this record.

Green = Paper Trail + Randomized Audit;
Yellow = Paper Trail, but no Audit (NH is in this category)
RED = No Paper Trail

NH is good, they have voter verified paper trails (the optical scan ballots), however, there is room for improvement.  What NH could really use is a automatic (not requiring payment, legal paperwork, expression of doubt, legal case, requests or anything) randomized recount of a statistically significant set of districts.

While I concur that there probably most likely was not any funny business in NH and while I agree that the demographic explanation for the number variance makes sense, I do not agree that NH is in the clear.  New Hampshire, and all the other Yellow states in the map really need policies and procedures for routine, randomized, statistically significant routine checks of those paper trails.  So, those who are outright dismissing the concern trolls need to think hard about how you can be more productive.  

That said, the concern trolls need to stop claiming "stolen elections", and should start talking about how you're going to help make sure that stolen elections don't happen.  How about donating to Verified Voting and similar organizations.  How about learning those laws and lobbying legislatures to enact good sound policies?

This is a long-term, gradual struggle.  Let's turn that map green.

•  Indeed.

  by Naniboujou on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:21:34 AM PDT

•  Delete this diary

  Help the elimination of stupid.

  New Hampshire is over with. South Carolina is next.  The train has left the station.  What a dope.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:24:39 AM PDT

  •  There were almost 43,000 incidents of

    voting concerns in the 2004 election. Many of these issues have not been addressed. So how is ignoring them going to help in the upcoming election?

    by blueintheface on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:28:20 AM PDT

  •  Nah

    I think leave it.  It is an example of what the 53 other diaries COULD have done but couldn't get past the OMG THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN screed.

    Random sampling of results are a decent QA measure.

    by newfie on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:32:59 AM PDT

  •  No. Don't.

    This issue needs to be looked at by people who aren't so obsessed with their own candidates that they're willing to ignore the facts.

    by Randgrithr on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:43:14 AM PDT

  •  Hillary benefits by calling for verification

    (a) Hillary calling for verification will enhance her reputation;

    (b) It will add credibility if she wishes to challenge a machine only count in November; and

    (c) If some rethug Rove-ian did play some games here, he WILL release those discrepancies at an very inconvenient time in late October.

    I believe a hand count WILL confirm the machine count.

    Therefore, Hillary wins by calling for such a count.

    by Bill White on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:40:28 AM PDT

•  Well said.

  The fact is that there have been far too many voting irregularities and it's hard to blame people for being suspicious after the long history of voting shenanigans by both parties.

  And any questions that people have over the primary voting should be a call to action and support for the legitimate activists who have been working to make our election system secure and verifiable. (And for anyone new to this issue, that wouldn't be Bev Harris or www.blackboxvoting.org/.)

  by blueintheface on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:25:09 AM PDT

•  I endorse this.

  It's a basic form of quality control.

  Every Nth radial tire gets examined for defects. Every Nth can of soda does.

  Every Nth scanner result should be.

  I think "Nth" means perhaps 3-5 precincts in New Hampshire.

  I'm confident that the process would turn up no problems, as was the case in 2004 when Nader had a few precincts hand-recounted.

  by Elwood Dowd on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:28:09 AM PDT

•  Two different shades of yellow?

   What do they mean?

  by WIds on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:38:02 AM PDT

  •  One's a state where

    people who notice that the voting machines are Diebold's are called "concern trolls", and the other isn't. ;-7

    by Randgrithr on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:41:13 AM PDT

  •  yellow - defacto vs dejure

    The bright yellow is a lack of legislation, but they are actually using machines /w voter verified paper trails.  The subdued yellow means that not only are they using good machines, but they have laws that enforce the use of machines with a voter-verified paper trail.

    by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:41:29 AM PDT

    •  Wyoming, North Dakota...

      I thought maybe those were the states that used "show of hands."

      by Elwood Dowd on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:50:32 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Thank you for the explanation

      by linnen on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:01:21 AM PDT

•  I don't concur

  I concur that there probably most likely was not any funny business in NH

  I see no reason to conclude that there was "probably most likely" no funny business in NH. I see no reason to conclude anything at this point. ("A conclusion is where you got tired of thinking.")

  I did not find DHinMI's "demographic explanation" to be particularly compelling.  He was attempting to use a historical control (2004) to account for current data.  Historical controls are notoriously weak and unreliable.

  On the other hand, the data from ballots counted by optical scanning machines and those from ballots counted by hand in the current election serve as excellent concurrent controls to evaluate the impact of the two voting systems on the results of this election. (Concurrent controls are the scientific gold standard.) And they show a discrepancy that warrants further investigation.

  The only thing I'm willing to conclude based on what I've seen posted thus far is that the people using the data on machine- versus hand-counted data from the current election know a lot more about how to effectively evaluate election results for evidence of tampering than the people trying to use data from prior elections to refute tampering.

  by Free Spirit on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:36:27 AM PDT

  •  You don't have a clue.

    There ARE no concurrent metrics. The cities and towns that use scanners are quite different demographically, economically, and inter terms of voter registration than those that hand count.

    by Elwood Dowd on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:26:18 AM PDT

    •  "Concurrent"

      ...doesn't mean "equivalent."  It means concurrent...happening at the same point in time, period.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM PDT

•  Hillary can get a win-win-win here if she calls

  for a manual recount to verify the machines.

  (a) She enhances her image, like a golfer who records an unseen stroke. And since I believe the hand count will confirm the machine count, there is no downside.

  (b) She builds credibility in case she decides to challenge a machine count in November.

  (c) She can better claim the mantle of clean voting advocate if she does this after winning, rather than after losing.

  = = =

  There is a tiny tiny tiny chance a Rove-ian could have planted a time bomb. (Note: Hillary's campaign would have nothing to do with this).

  If the numbers do not match (and a Rove-ian did it) to have a Diebold employee discover and reveal the discrepancy in late October would be a nasty dirty trick.

  Count now and after the numbers match up the issue is dead, dead, dead.

  And since (a) & (b) & (c) are all good for Hillary it is a win-win-win.

  by Bill White on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:46:24 AM PDT

•  Helpful explanations, research: LINKS

  We need to get up to speed about voting systems. America is already way down the list on media diversity (one component of ensuring 'free and fair elections') so we do need to focus on election integrity:

  Inteview and Transcript:
  http://www.democracynow.org/...

  http://www.coalitionforvotingintegri...

  In close elections and in cases where voting systems go kerflooey
  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  Democracy loses.

  Important to know about Republican strategy:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." --Paul Weyrich

  by LNK on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:09:40 AM PDT

•  Pennsylvania 2008 Presidential election

  is the problem area identified in the interview and transcript I linked above.

  The author said it might be so close and confused that it will go up to The Supreme Court again.

  by LNK on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:11:03 AM PDT