We ARE Paying for it!

Kos called us fraudsters. He and all you other assholes who are making fun of those of us who want a recount in NH constantly insult us. You tell us that if we want to pay for it, fine, we can have a recount. WELL WE'RE PAYING FOR IT!

So shut. The fuck. Up.

Most of us aren't fraudsters. MOST of us haven't even mentioned fraud or conspiracy. Dennis Kucinich did not mention fraud or conspiracy! I've donated $100 directly to Dennis Kucinich, but I earmarked it for this recount cost. Now, there is a way to contribute directly to the recount.

HERE

I get paid on Tuesday and I'll then donate another $100 via ActBlue. I'm not a Dennis Kucinich for President supporter but I fully support him in this recount effort.

There are many reasons to be in favor of a hand recount in New Hampshire and only a very few of them have to do with fraud or conspiracy. Personally, I'm interested in the hand recount procedure itself, how it is performed and who is involved. Here's a question I want answered and I want it answered now, in NH, rather than waiting for a problem in the general election:

Should the company(s) who manufacture(s) the optical scan computerized counting machines have anything to do with the hand recount?

In New Hampshire, are they trying to be involved with it? We're fixing to find out. That alone is worth my contribution, BECAUSE I SAY IT IS! It's my money and you can take your superior opinion about what I do with my money and shove it right up your ass.

I've actually seen comments that we don't need a hand recount in NH because they don't use touchscreens and they do have paper ballots! What good are paper ballots if you never count them? YOU MAINSTREAM ELITIST MISINFORMED ASSHOLES! I've also seen comments that say we don't need hand recounts because an automatic sampled hand-audit of randomly selected machines' ballots would do the same thing. Guess what? They didn't do those audits in New Hampshire. They have no procedure for doing them. Maybe they will, NEXT TIME, because some of us have made it an issue BY PAYING FOR THIS RECOUNT.

I'm interested in getting all of this settled now. Why? Because in many states, these same misconceptions, misconceptions regarding paper ballots that YOU are perpetuating (you thickheaded, mob-joining assholes) have made paper ballots exactly as useless as the touchscreens they replaced. For example, my state. Wyoming.

In Wyoming, we had a task force made up of all our county clerks. They decided that Wyoming would go with all paper ballots and all those paper ballots would be counted by optical scan machines manufactured by ES&S. Problem solved. No more discussion allowed -- shut up -- we're fine now -- stop making trouble -- you're a crackpot. One problem: no handcounts. None. ALL recounts in Wyoming are done by feeding the ballots back through the same machines that counted them in the first place. But what if I want to PAY for a handcount? Can't do it. I can pay to have the ballots run back through the machines, but I cannot pay to have them handcounted. Why? According to my own county clerk, she checks the accuracy of the ES&S machines before the election and certifies them accurate... so there's absolutely NO NEED for a handcount. There's no procedure for a handcount. Wyoming doesn't know how to DO a handcount.

If you want a handcount in Wyoming you have one option and one option only: take the county and the state to court. But you'll not only be taking the county and the state to court, you'll be taking ES&S to court too. ES&S will be a friend of the court on the side of the state AGAINST handcounts. Wyoming isn't the only state like this and I would appreciate rational commenters to check their own states' rules regarding recounts. I'm in favor of the New Hampshire Primary Recount because there's a chance even Wyoming county clerks will be able to see why they handcounted.

Some of you might find this diary insulting. How does that feel? Tell me all about it. Assholes.

•  I KNOW my town counted right

  because we did it by hand on paper and I was there when it happened. I'm not so sure about the rest of the state...Do cities and towns that use any kind of machine justify the machine's tally against the voter checklist?

  by peaceloveandkucinich on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:21:23 PM PDT

•  How did you earmark it?

  I'd like to contribute to this, but couldn't figure out how to do it, without basically funding Kucinich's (very principled, but otherwise lackluster) presidential campaign.

  by dsinha on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM PDT

  •  There's now an actblue page

    that specifies your funds will go to the recount. Initially, there was a link on Kucinich for president, I used that. The ActBlue link is the best one and might be the only way to earmark now.

    HERE

    by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:26:30 PM PDT

    •  Invested $50... Go Dennis!!

      When voters are disenfranchised, it's the death of democracy. Whether it's college kids in IA, restaurant workers on the Strip, or the voters in NH.

      Can't understand how guys like kos can recommend not following through with this, or using his power to reach people, to actually make sure that the NH results are properly audited.

      Dennis has always been a real leader. I love him. Whether it's leading the impeachment fight, or one against the disenfranchisement of NH primary voters.

      by dsinha on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM PDT

•  Absolutely, a hand count is a good idea.

  Indeed, the chair of the NH Democratic party encouraged it and invited as many people as possible to participate so we'll be prepared for November.

  by hannah on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

  •  Oh, and we should know how much it will cost by

    next Wednesday.  Personally, I think it's inappropriate for a candidate to be relied on to request an audit.  Much less pay for it.  The election belongs to the voters.  When delegates to the Convention or the Electoral College are chosen, the candidate has no vested interest in the ballots.  They still belong to the people.

    by hannah on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

    •  It's at least defensible.

      If the election is within a few points the near-winner gets the whole state recounted for $2000.

      I wouldn't set up the law quite like that, but it's not a roadblock.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM PDT

•  So THIS is How a Democracy...

  ...Works! I haven't seen one in such a long time, I almost forgot.

  by Pluto on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:36:40 PM PDT

•  Are you setting up a tip jar?

  by dsinha on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:39:35 PM PDT

  •  Sure!

    Here!

    If ya want to TR me, that's fine too.

    by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM PDT

    •  wow. and since i do want to TR you, i will.

      yuou know, with commentary like this:

      [snip]

      
      ...you can take your superior opinion about what I do with my money and shove it right up your ass...

      
      ...YOU MAINSTREAM ELITIST MISINFORMED ASSHOLES...

      
      ...(you thickheaded, mob-joining assholes)...

      
      ...Some of you might find this diary insulting. How does that feel? Tell me all about it. Assholes.

      you make the TR all the easier.

      TRd for the personal attacks.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM PDT

      •  Thank you

        I expected that and you're right. I deserve it.

        But it's worth it. I get to call assholes assholes and you get to TR me.

        That's a good deal.

        Should I start TR'ing people who call me a fraudster?

        by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM PDT

    •   Recommended and tipped

      1. For the principle. Our election process needs much more transparency.

      2. To offset BS TRs.

      3. As an action against the arrogant and obnoxiuos attitude of many around here (Kos included)toward Kucinich and those who support him. I've been away from here for awhile but the arrogance of some of these folks is lamentable. Let's alienate as many people as we can. Smart strategy. Maybe the Democrats can blow still another election.

      by slatsg on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:09:32 PM PDT

      •  Great points!

        Although I expected the TRs and by the rules, I deserved them. That's two of the loveliest TRs I've ever gotten.

        Your point 3

        3. As an action against the arrogant and obnoxiuos attitude of many around here (Kos included)toward Kucinich and those who support him. I've been away from here for awhile but the arrogance of some of these folks is lamentable. Let's alienate as many people as we can. Smart strategy. Maybe the Democrats can blow still another election.

        Isn't it amazing? They think they understand voting technology. In truth, no one does because the manufacturers and vendors prohibit that understanding.

        My county Clerk: "We test these scanners before we use them."

        Me: "How much do you even know about them?"

        My County Clerk: "I'm trained on them."

        Me: "Who does the configuration... matching names with arrays, that sort of thing?"

        My County Clerk: "ES&S does that."

        Me: "ES&S in.... Wyoming?"

        My County Clerk: "Omaha, Nebraska."

        Me: "Do you know how it's done?"

        My County Clerk: "No. That's not my job."

        Me: "Your job isn't to certify that our elections are accurate and fair? Your job isn't to count votes?"

        My County Clerk: "Yes. And I do that."

        Me: "You don't count votes. ES&S does. You don't count votes any more than you make toast. But at least with a toaster, you can look down inside it and make some educated guesses as to how the thing works. Do you think I can ask you questions about those machines you can't answer?"

        My County Clerk: "I imagine you can, yes."

        Me: "Why can't we handcount the ballots?"

        My County Clerk: "Because we don't need to?"

        Me: "You're sure of that?"

        My County Clerk: "Yes!"

        ------

        It's like quantum mechanics.

        "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."

        -- Niels Bohr.

        by Fishgrease on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:20:04 AM PDT

      •  NEXT, the county attorney

        told me I would have to take the county and state (and ES&S!) to court to get handcounts, even if I paid for them! He said that I shouldn't bother because the judge will require some sort of proof, or a good reason to believe that the ES&S machines are inaccurate. I said, "Like handcounting the ballots?"

        He said, no, like witnesses that the machines had been tampered with. On and on and on like this!

        What if it was just an error? What if they hadn't been tampered with at all... but are still inaccurate?

        "You got proof?" .. he says.

        I gotta stop thinking about it. Head's gonna asplode.

        by Fishgrease on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:27:16 AM PDT

•  I live in a fairly large town

  in Northern NH.

  I put my paper ballot in the ominously large Diebold machine.

  Obama won in my town.

  I don't have a problem w/ Kucinich paying for a recount, but I see no need for one.

  by nhcollegedem on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM PDT

  •  The need for a recount

    is fully in how that recount is done and who is involved. I don't doubt the machine-counted results on THIS primary election. I'm more interested in the procedure.

    That procedure is going to be interesting. You can bet that the voting technology companies are lobbying the state of New Hampshire right this minute to have some influence upon how the hand recount is done.

    They've absolutely no right to any input.

    by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM PDT

    •  Got any evidence?

      Of Diebold lobbying New Hampshire?

      Because that would make no sense at all. The recount procedures are all spelled out, the legislature and governor are no involved.

      But I guess I'm just being AN ASSHOLE.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM PDT

      •  Never said I had evidence

        I'm interested in SEEING if they lobby. I'm interested in SEEING if they have anything to do with the recount.

        BECAUSE in my state, handcounts are not allowed and ES&S has a say in it.

        by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM PDT

        •  Take it up with Wyoming.

          New Hampshire allows them (obviously) and had a big one in 2004, which Nader paid for.

          It showed that the scanners worked remarkably well in that election.

          (I think New Hampshire should have a few state-funded recounts every election as a QC measure.)

          by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM PDT

          •  I HAVE taken it up with Wyoming

            And I will again. The more successful hand recounts we have nationwide, the better my standing here.

            by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM PDT

      •  Would you rather we wait for the general

        election and see what happens then?

        If I want to pay for a recount, what's it to you?

        Do you think you have a right to act as if I'm a loony?

        by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM PDT

        •  Hey, deaf ears.

          I've said repeatedly I support not just this, but regular hand recounts.

          by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:49:59 PM PDT

          •  Taken. You're right.

            So I never called you an asshole.

            The assholes. I called the assholes assholes.

            by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM PDT

            •  (channeling the long gone Armando)

              Hey, if you called the assholes "assholes," you called ME "asshole!"

              by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM PDT

              •  Righteously!

                We are. One and all.

                Assholes!

                by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM PDT

•  ES&S and Chuck Hagel

  Hagel won his first term in the Senate in something of a surprise over then popular governor Ben Nelson, now his colleague in the Senate.  A majority of the votes in Nebraska were counted by ES&S equipment.   And Chuck Hagel had been CEO, and still owned stock in the company.  The company was originally called American Information Systems until it changed its name in 1997, after Hagel had been elected (with about 80% of the votes in Nebraska counted on his equipment). Through a series of interesting financial maneuvers, Hagel apparently still owned an interest in parent companies as late as 2003 and possibly later, even though it did not necessarily show up on his ethics statements.   he had 'resigned' as CEO in 1995 before he declared for the Senate.

  Yeah, I know Hagel has been critical of Bush on a number of things, but I have always wondered if his original election was on the up and up.

  I have no trouble with an optical scan of paper ballots.   But any jurisdiction doing them should do a random examination of 1% or so of the precincts, and if there is any discrepancy and there is a question about the results, be prepared for a complete hand recount.

  peace.

  by teacherken on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:43:34 PM PDT

  •  Hopefully NH will institute mandatory audit...

    ...till then if there's any question about the authenticity of the results, it's our duty to support, and pay for, a recount.

    by dsinha on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM PDT

    •  I strongly support random audits.

      After every election New Hampshire should have a manual recount of maybe five precincts, both scanner and  hand-count. It's just standard QC.

      But people who, thorough either ignorance or other motivations, claim that there is something funny about this year's numbers are hurting that effort.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        And I'm not saying there's anything funny about this year's numbers. They're just numbers. I still want a hand recount for reasons I find worth contributing.

        by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM PDT

  •  As I said in my diary

    (if it published right), my state doesn't allow for hand counts under any circumstances.

    None.

    You can't do a hand count here in Wyoming.

    But they're still so proud of our paper ballots.

    by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM PDT

•  I fully expect this recount

  to show that the machine scan counts were perfectly accurate, or nearly so. I'll be surprised if they aren't.

  by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM PDT

•  Better to call it an audit than a recount

  Saw Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) on DemocracyNow!yesterday talking about legislation he has introduced requiring audits any time electronic voting is involved. He makes a very persuasive argument that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the citizen's faith in the validity of the vote counting. He makes the same argument that many computer scientists make -- all electronic systems should be audited periodically -- the more important the data, the more often the verification.

  by carolita on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM PDT

•  Great, you're paying for it.

  If you're not a fraudster, then I guess you're not who kos or anyone else was talking about when we talked about fraudsters.

  You are, however, obnoxious.

  by MissLaura on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:09:41 PM PDT

  •  Sometimes defending democracy is obnoxious.

    Granted the diarist was obnoxious, but in a Lenny Bruce sort of way.

    I'm not a 'fraudster' who believes in weak 'evidence' and unsubstantiated claims, but considering how really screwed up our vote processing and counting procedures often are, I think efforts to audit it should be supported.

    As Malvina Reynolds said:

    How about those years of lynchings
    And the shot in Evers' back?
    Did you say it wasn't proper,
    Did you stand upon the track?
    You were quiet just like mice,
    Now you say we aren't nice,
    And if that is Freedom's price,
    We don't mind.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:56:07 PM PDT

  •  In NH's case, the election processes may be

    fine (and I agreed with DHinMi's diary about it), but it doesn't hurt to double check it, and as the diarist says, find any other glitches in the recounting process to straighten out. Our election processes are too important and valuable to leave just to the experts, who have often not been vigilant but either sloppy or corrupt (again not necessarily in NH's case).

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:59:46 PM PDT

  •  You're wrong.

    We were lumped in with the loonies. Out of the hundreds of people who have posted on DKos agreeing with this recount, I've only found a couple who said anything about fraud or a conspiracy.

    Can you find me more? No? Then where are all these fraudsters Kos was talking about?

    Kucinich never said anything about fraud or a conspiracy.

    Kos and DHinMI went hunting rabbits with a nuke.

    And you know it.

    When I'm insulted, I tend to be obnoxious. I'm not Ghandi. You want a DKos made up of Ghandis, you'll only need a couple of dozen UIDs.

    by Fishgrease on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:44:55 AM PDT

•  Did you see NH is going to do the recount?

  Cheers!

  by dsinha on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM PDT