Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Some New Hampshire Primary Vote Counts Creating Questions

Well, this is interesting.
As far as I am concerned - it isn't a matter of who won or lost - but we all do not win if our votes are not properly counted. CT Voters Count also blogged THIS.

New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Vote Skew

Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31

Article by Paul Joseph Watson
The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.

As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.

Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate?

"The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form," Harris told the Alex Jones Show.

"They are counting everything in public real nice, they fill out a form in public real nice and then they transfer it to another form and they call that a summary sheet and then that is the one they send in," explained Harris.

"What happened is she said they did not transfer the number correctly and put zero instead of 31 - that is unacceptable as an answer."

With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map originally listed zero votes for Ron Paul as you can see below. It has now been updated to reflect the 31 votes Paul actually received.

The remainder of the 31 people in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul need to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote.

Harris estimates that it could cost the Ron Paul campaign as much as $67,000 dollars for a recount, but such a move could throw the entire primary into doubt, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama appears to have been cheated out of a win by Hillary Clinton.

A similar problem surfaced in Greenville as well.
What has also been circulating is that Hillary Clinton Received A 4.5% Boost In "Diebold" Towns. This is interesting given the controversy over the Diebold machines.

With all the brouhaha about the polls not matching the results of this primary vote - it seems prudent to force the Secretary of State of New Hampshire to demand automatic recounts of ALL votes cast in this primary, especially with this episode in Sutton.


Dawn said...

I've been a part of a few elections here in Canada. We always use paper ballots and ballot counting is always observed not only by the officers that were in charge of the vote that day but by representatives of the candidates. I can't imagine any way for a similar situation to occur up here.

This isn't a, "we're better then you", brag. It's just that I can't understand why the US system(s) isn't standardized, simple (ie; paper) and full of redundant checks to ensures accuracy. Actually, I CAN imagine why it might be so and that reason scares me a bit...

Dawn said...

Oops, by, "been a part of", I mean I was an officer working on the day of voting.

Pint Size said...

The movie "Man of the Year" certainly does come to mind. You should check it out sometime! It makes a point and it is also funny to watch :]

Anonymous said...

I agree. Some sort of audit is necessary and this story is gonna break sooner or later.

Susan said...

My 20 year old daughter told me about this one too. It's getting good attention after the unfortunate fact, that's for sure.

You can brag in my book, Dawn.:-) My little farm town uses paper ballots and is done exactly as you described. My little farm town doesn't let much go by that's questionable w/o talking about it a whole lot.

The big votes in the big cities are a little different thing apparently. Mary Nix and Judy pointed out Ohio's voting machine problems in an earlier blog. Ohio voters (or should I say votes) were a BIG deal in the presidential election.