Why would the spread remain almost the same?

I have read some of the internet postings regarding possible voting machine fraud in the Obama/Clinton NH race for which I have not reached a conclusion.  However, I did notice an almost equal spread between their vote counts throughout the evening.  Having followed live voting results since the Kennedy/Nixon race in 1960, I am used to witnessing a sea-saw change between the candidates as various precincts which are strong for one candidate or the other randomly report their results. In contrast, I never saw this usual pattern, but rather one of an almost equal spread throughout the night which could result from a programmed mathematical formula.

While I am strongly opposed to electronic voting, I have no evidence of outright fraud.  However, I do feel it rather noteworthy that the normally expected sea/saw pattern did not occur in this election.

•  Women live everywhere. n/t

  by dotster on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM PDT

  •  yes but

    different cities and precincts had varying results which you would think at least temporarily would bounce the spread a bit.  I am not suggesting anything other than an oddity of how the numbers fell, but odd nonetheless.

    by ratador on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM PDT

•  This is too big an accusation

  to just throw out ther because you are surprised by a result.

  by randyhauser on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM PDT

  •  I'm not making an accusation.

    I'm making an observation.

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM PDT

    •  An observation of fraud?

      What fraud did you observe?

      by randyhauser on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM PDT

      •  My direct quote...

        I have no evidence of outright fraud.

        by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM PDT

        •  Perhaps you should wait until you do

          My "observation" is that you are looking for anything you can to make a particular Democratic candidate look bad.

          by randyhauser on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM PDT

          •  Wherein did I "rag" on any candidate?

            As I stated I don't trust electronic voting.

            Besides, should the results have been tainted toward Clinton, I would suspect the Repugs since I feel (my opinion) that they would probably rather run against Hillary. They then would be able to resurrect the old Clinton charges.

            Again - merely my opinion.

            by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:06:12 PM PDT

            •  Does New Hampshire have electronic voting?

              The answer would be no.

              Making wreckless accusations of voter fraud is "ragging".

              by randyhauser on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:31:55 AM PDT

              •  That may well be. However,

                about 80% of the votes, as I understand, were electronically scanned. My personal feeling on this issue is that all votes must be on paper ballots and hand counted.  If they wish to first electronically scan them for an early election report, no problem with me as long as they are later hand counted and verified as accurate.

                End of case!

                by Templar on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM PDT

•  Watch it

  you are about to be attacked by the Hillary camp.

  Bradblog is all over this.  If you have any questions don't ask them on Daily Kos.  You won't like your reception.

  Go to Bradblog

  http://www.bradblog.com/

  by nisleib on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM PDT

  •  I'm not in the Clinton camp

    As evident by my sig.  And I still think the idea of fraud is crap.

    by DH from MD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:44:00 PM PDT

    •  Most likely you are right

      but the diarist has a point.

      I watched the returns all night and kept expecting a poll position or several poll position swithes and they never came.

      It did seem a little odd for a race that was so close.

      by nisleib on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM PDT

  •  Guess what?

    I'm not in the Hillary camp and I disagree with this comment pretending to be a diary.    

    by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:44:13 PM PDT

    •  Well don't get

      mad at me, it is not my diary.

      And if it makes you mad just ignore it, I doubt it will make it to the rec'd list.

      by nisleib on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM PDT

      •  Mad?

        Not at all. Just responding to your stupid comment about the Hillary camp.

        by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:08:19 PM PDT

    •  I again ask - Wherein is it not a diary?

      by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

  •  I'm still trying to figure out...

    why in the heck people here don't believe in actually having the votes counted. You're right...BradBlog is one of the few places to talk about this sort of thing without being called "crazy". Why not just count all the damn votes by hand and if it's still accurate--great!

    by thecoolmacdude on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:31:54 PM PDT

    •  I'll drink to that.

      The problem is that some Kossacks want to jump to the illogical conclusion that if votes had been "rigged" for Clinton (as a example), then Clinton must be involved.

      I can think of at least a half-dozen reasons the Repugs would want to control the outcome of a Democratic election.  We are well aware of some of the "games" Karl Rove and Co. have pulled in last elections.

      Instead of fighting fellow Democrats, these Kossacks should spend their energy in demanding an investigation to make sure that, once again, the Repugs aren't up to their old tricks. If they are - it's 2000 all over again.

      by Templar on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:47:20 AM PDT

      •  Hopefully it's not too late...

        by thecoolmacdude on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM PDT

•  Ron Paul's blimp broadcast fake votes to the mach

  The exit polls perfectly matched the actual results. The reason she scored more where there were e-voting machines were because those were large population centers.

  by greatn on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:42:01 PM PDT

  •  And how does one know to rely on exit polling?

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM PDT

  •  They reweighted the exit polls later in the night

    Obama was ahead in the early exit poll numbers.

    by Fro on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:49:08 PM PDT

    •  My point is that since we have no independent

      control over exit polls we cannot rely on them for proof of anything - just general information.

      by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM PDT

•  It was due tot he fact that inside each machine

  there is an Elvis clone magically counting each vote and determining whether it should actually go to the candidate for which it was cast.

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:42:17 PM PDT

  •  You appear to know little about computer programs

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM PDT

    •  I work in IT

      for a software company.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:46:37 PM PDT

    •  BTW

      You appear to be snark hindered.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:46:57 PM PDT

      •  Well then you of all people would know

        how easy it is to rig a computer program.  Remember the dude a few years ago that rounded cents down and put the difference in his account which quickly grew to over a million dollars.

        It's so easy that the very idea of electronic voting shares the hell out of me. Even more so, is the fact that most corporations would naturally favor the Repugs.

        by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM PDT

        •  There is a paper trail in New Hampshire

          There is no evidence of fraud in New Hampshire. Not a single shred.

          - Albert Einstein

          by Walt starr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM PDT

          •  How do you know?

            Did they recount the ballots? If not, you'll never know.

            by thecoolmacdude on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:33:54 PM PDT

            •  Tell you what

              The ballots exist. Every last one of them.

              Go in and count them. It'll cost you, but if you are saying there was fraud, put your damned money where your mouse is!

              If you don't pay the money for the access to the ballots so you can count them, you;'re blowing steam out your ass.

              As for me, I am 100% confident there was no fraud.

              - Albert Einstein

              by Walt starr on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:47:21 AM PDT

              •  Walt

                I am 100% confident there was no fraud.

                Knowing how the Repugs have controlled the outcome of past Democratic presidential elections - Florida - 2000, Ohio - 2004, are you equally 100% confident that the Repugs were not involved?

                Don't be so quick to assume that should a Democratic election be rigged that a Democrat is involved. I can think of at least a half dozen reasons the Repugs would like to control the outcome of our elections.

                Wake up and smell the coffee - before we lose once again!

                by Templar on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:02:57 AM PDT

•  This is a comment

  ...not a diary.  That said, I disagree completely. I watched the totals as they came in, one percent at a time, and the vote difference went back and forth.

  You need to read the diary and tagging rules.

  by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:42:29 PM PDT

  •  I did. Wherein is it not a diary?

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM PDT

    •  From the FAQ

      Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.

      link

      by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM PDT

      •  I feel mine is substantive. Apparently,

        you don't.

        At least we are in agreement as to where we disagree.  

        by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:31:05 PM PDT

        •  You feel?

          Do you feel there are 3 substantive paragraphs?  

          by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM PDT

          •  Your quote:

            A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs

            Last time I checked a guideline is not a requirement.

            by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:36:23 PM PDT

            •  You forgot this

              Diaries should be substantive.

              Your one paragraph is not only not substantive, it's wrong.  

              And for the record, making claims without proof clearly violates site rules and can lead to you being banned.  

              by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:16:54 PM PDT

•  That's false

    I watched the returns as they came in.  Early on there was about a 4000 vote gap.  After shrinking a bit, it began to rise again, ending up at about 8000 votes.  At no point was the spread static.

    False premise, false conclusions.

    At any rate, a somewhat static spread would hardly be the expected result from computerized hanky-panky.  

  by WIds on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

  •  I never said it was static.

    I said it never had the normal sea-saw pattern that normally occurs in elections.

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:46:14 PM PDT

    •  how often do

      two candidates go back and forth in the lead? Almost never. So what sea-saw pattern are you talking about?

      by SeanF on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM PDT

      •  Actually, they often do. However,

        in this case I was talking about the spread between their votes.  It was very close to 39%/36% throughout the evening which is highly unusual.

        by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM PDT

        •  well, this comment is just like

          your diary. all opinion, no fact. How do you know it's highly unusual?

          And for the record, the spread swung from 2% to 4%.

          by SeanF on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM PDT

          •  I stated it was my own observation from past

            experience:

            I am used to witnessing a sea-saw change between the candidates as various precincts which are strong for one candidate or the other randomly report their results. In contrast, I never saw this usual pattern.

            What more do you want?  Some others apparently also wondered about this based on their postings here.

            by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:22:51 PM PDT

    •  I've watched returns on lots of elections

        See-sawing, except in an extraordinarily tight race, only occurs very early on when only a few precincts have reported.  After a significant sample of precincts are in, however, you usually see one candidate establish a lead which widens over the evening, just because a lead as a percentage of population will increase as the sample population increases.  That's what I saw yesterday evening.

        If you maintain a numerically static lead, it means your proportional lead is actually shrinking.

      by WIds on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM PDT

      •  I agree to a point, since with a higher total

        number of reported votes, the less effect on the total by individual precincts. However, each individuals percentage of the total normally swing more than we witnessed in this contest.

        by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:16:22 PM PDT

•  Yes I noticed that too.

  There was barely a fluctuation in the spread for hours.  It is an odd phenomenon.

  by don mikulecky on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:44:58 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    it was like every part of the state voted in roughly the same way as every other part of the state.  I know squat about NH, but that seems weird to me.

    by nisleib on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM PDT

  •  Baloney

    The results were updated 1% at a time.  At various times the lead was around 1,800, up to 4,000, down to 2,500, down to 1,800, up to 3,000, and so on.  

    by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:11:44 PM PDT

    •  Your talking about votes...

      look at the individual percentages of the total.

      by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM PDT

      •  You mean

        ...the totals that went back and forth from 2 to 5 percentage points as results were updated 1% at a time?

        And again, this is not a diary, it's a comment.  

        by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:28:31 PM PDT

        •  When was the spread 5% or even 4%

          for that matter.  Try 2% to 3% spread.

          by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:35:48 PM PDT

          •  I was following the incoming results from early

            in the evening.  There was definitely a stretch of time when the spread was HRC 40% BHO 35%.  Very early on I seem to recall her being up by 7% but discounted it as meaningless due to the small number of precincts reporting at that point.

            by kbman on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM PDT

            •  I first started watching when about 5% of the

              total precincts had reported.  You may well be correct for the very early returns, but usually there isn't any meaningful resuts until at least 5% have reported.

              by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM PDT

•  Here are results that show

  a breakdownby county, by town size, by machine or handcount.

  It doesn't tell the order the results came in.

  It's striking to me that the rural areas and small towns are a place Obama won and urban areas where he lost. He won the handcount but lost the machine.

  Matthews just revealed that the reason he is hung up on the difference from the polling is because he means exit polls.

  After 2004 Edison/Mitofsky exit pollsters no longer release raw data to journalists. The networks paying them for the data ( ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC) are given earlier data but they have to limit who sees it and not reveal it. Only weighted final polls could be revealed. Weighted polls are made to fix the results, that's standard now. They are used to show trends, not show fraud.

  Matthews said that at 5:30pm election night he was given the data (he stressed for informational purposes only) and it showed Obama would have a substantial victory and they did match the polls before the election.

  That's why he is hung up on his racial idea, that people just said they voted for Obama to be politically correct...because he didn't mean the phone calls before voting, it was the exit polls of those who voted.

  Someones response was that the workers doing the exit polling were too young.

  by joynow on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM PDT

  •  The problem with electronic voting is that..

    we can never trust the results, and that should never be.  Since we already mistrust their results, we even more question unusual happenings such as I have done.

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM PDT

    •  And this is a state

      that had election fraud on the Republican side in a Senate race in 2002, resulting in criminal convictions, I believe.  

      by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:23:35 PM PDT

•  Homogeneous Population

  The reason voting often seesaws is because different precincts and counties are reporting in through the evening. To the extent that the demographics differ from location to location, the results will seesaw.

  New Hampshire has a pretty homogeneous population.  There are no big cities and a relatively small minority population.

  by Free Spirit on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM PDT

  •  That could well be. It would be interesting to

    compare to past NH elections. It may be an anomaly for me since my experience is with California elections.

    I would have never even raised the issue except for the fact that the election results are so different from the polling which seems to be questioned by almost everyone except Hillary supporters.

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:46:21 PM PDT

  •  Aren't the north and the south of NH very

    different?  Isn't the southern end of the state part of the Boston metropolitan area, covered by the Boston media?

    by lysias on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM PDT

    •  Could be

      I'm not familiar with the state at that level of detail.  Just know that it is less diverse than some other states.

      by Free Spirit on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:17:46 PM PDT

      •  That may be, but on CNN they went

        over a large map of NH and contrasted the expected voting results from the two large cities, several college towns, and the rural areas and discussed the diverse voting patterns in those differing areas.  The three areas are fairly common within themselves, but quite uncommon between them.

        I personally feel at this point there are too many unanswered questions that beg for an answer.  Why electronic voting has not been outlawed is beyond me.  Every time the machines are investigated they come up short. I'm a trained computer administrator and probably know too much about computers to trust their results.

        I frankly find it hard to support candidates when I am never sure if their election was honest. I would be more accepting of the results had not electronic voting machines been involved.

        by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:33:19 PM PDT

•  I was following something entirely different:

  how Huckabee, Giuliani, and Ron Paul were doing.

  Their percentages as well stayed essentially unchanged throughout the night.

  by lysias on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:21:47 PM PDT

•  Please. Don't get me

  thinking the bush mob's magic machines are now working for the Democrats. I don't want to believe that, and I'll resist it to the bitter end, unless there's compelling evidence.

  It's just about the only thread of hope I have left. If they steal that, too, I'll be forced to move to Antarctica, where people are few, and penguins sing and dance.

  by Executive Odor on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:45:50 PM PDT

  •  Why wouldn't Bush & Co want to

    rig the voting to the Democratic candidate they would most like to run against?

    A "rigged" Democratic election would not necessarily mean that a Democrat was involved. It would only mean that someone who wanted a certain outcome was involved. It may not even be a campaign, it may be a corporation or rich individual out for revenge or tax breaks, governmental favoritism or whatever.

    The fact that an election is rigged says absolutely nothing about who may have "rigged" it for whatever reason contrary to some recent postings I have read.  

    by Templar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:31:22 PM PDT

    •  Totally agree. I think that...

      the big wigs in Washington are scared of change and therefore don't want Edwards OR Obama to win. Maybe they think Hillary would be easier to beat as well, or at least know she wouldn't "reform" Washington.

      by thecoolmacdude on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:36:53 PM PDT

•  Looks like the exit polls in NH were as different

  from the reported results as was the case in the 2004 presidential election.  Or at least so Chris Matthews says: Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH.

  by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:19:46 AM PDT

  •  Interesting interview.

    However, the old man kept talking about the polls leading up to the race - not the exit polls.  

    He first stated he knew nothing about the exit polls - so why did Tweedy have him on to discuss them?

    by Templar on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:48:38 AM PDT

    •  I assume you're talking about the same old man

      who talked perfect nonsense about his exit polls back in 2004.  I surmised then that he had somehow been intimidated.

      by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:50:51 AM PDT

      •  I know know who he is...

        but he sure seemed to be talking from the other end!

        by Templar on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:54:17 AM PDT

        •  Should have read..

          I don't know who he is

          by Templar on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:02:02 AM PDT

•  Brad Friedman is about to appear on

  Stephanie Miller's radio show.  (He's been writing a lot about the vote discrepancies on BRAD BLOG.)

  by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:21:12 AM PDT