Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary has spawned a point of bi-partisan agreement: a recount is needed. Republican long-shot Albert Howard has joined Democrat Dennis Kucinich in calling for a recount of election results.
Albert Howard is one of the Republican party's long-shot candidates: One of the people who paid the fee and were entered on New Hampshire's Primary ballot, even though he has received little public notice. (These are the candidates usually referred to as, "other," in the polls and post-Primary election results.) According to his website, his candidacy is Divinely inspired:
"The Angel of the Lord told me in January of 1992 that Hillary Rodham Clinton and I would meet and be running against each other and that she would lose". - Albert Benjamin Howard
Officially, he was credited with just over 40 votes on Tuesday, but according to reports, Howard believes he received as many as 187 votes. As the candidate watched C-SPAN coverage of the early election results, he was pleasantly surprised to see he had reached 50 votes with around 12% of the votes counted, and the total rose as high as 187 during C-SPAN's coverage.
Based on his observations, Howard joined Democrat Dennis Kucinich in requesting a hand-count of all New Hampshire Primary ballots.
According to an AP report printed in the Boston Globe, New Hampshire election officials are preparing for the recounts. Both Kucinich and Howard each paid a $2,000 fee to start the process, according to the report.
However, the recounts may still not take place. The $2,000 fee is basically a "deposit" toward the final cost of the recount. Each candidate will have the option of backing out of the recount when the full-cost estimate is given to them next week. The total cost to recount ballots could run into the tens of thousands of dollars. If either (or both) wish to pay the full cost, the recount could start as early as next Wednesday.
New Hampshire's Deputy Secretary of State, David Scanlan indicated confidence that any recounts will verify the accuracy of the certified results.
Albert Howard's belief that "Those who cast the votes decide nothing...Those who count the votes decide everything" is certainly a driving force behind his request. But so too, it seems, is there a certain opportunism to draw attention to a campaign being waged on the periphery. Quoting from the "New Hampshire Recount" page of Howard's web-site:
Thank you for your support in our fight for truth. We have been flooded with e-mails and media requests and are doing our best to respond to everyone.
Yesterday it was made official when Albert Howard met with Secretary of State William Gardner and handed him $2000 in cash.
This was the initial amount that was needed to start the process.
As soon as we have more information on the total cost we will post it here.
Albert Howard has requested that the recount will be done by paper trail hand count. This is a costly procedure. Again, thank you for your tremendous support. You are part of making history.
Look for more information on this page as soon as it is available to us.
What kind of crap is that? They tell them $2,000 for a recount, and now when they hand over the cash it is just a deposit and could cost tens of thousands!
This just illustrates what a stranglehold those of power, money and prestige in this country have over us "sheepl"....it seems as if the elections are really just entertainment for us, when in reality it has all been decided behind the curtain.
I hope that a grassroots organization takes up the stand to gather contributions to pay for this recount - but even then "they" would find a way to screw with it.
How disheartening.............our political system is merely smoke and mirrors from my point of view.
I don't know that they were ever told that the 2,000 was anything other than a starting point. The earliest report I saw about the Kucinich recount stated very clearly that the candidate had to foot the entire bill for the recount unless they lost by less than 2% or so...
Mostly because hand recounts almost never show a discrepancy of more than a handful of votes...obviously, if that turns out to not be the case here, that would be a precedent-setting event.
@Eric S. Wyatt
I don't know that they were ever told that the 2,000 was anything other than a starting point. The earliest report I saw about the Kucinich recount stated very clearly that the candidate had to foot the entire bill for the recount unless they lost by less than 2% or so...
Mostly because hand recounts almost never show a discrepancy of more than a handful of votes...obviously, if that turns out to not be the case here, that would be a precedent-setting event.
My guess is the cost will be so huge they won't be able to pay it and it will just wither and die on the vine............
I hope it doesn't. I'd be happy to see either scenario: 1) irregularities discovered and a corrected count emerges; or 2) counts are verified and conspiracy advocates have less to point to.
John Silvestro and his small private business, LHS Associates, has the exclusive programming contracts for all New Hampshire voting machines, which combined counted about 81 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Interesting - no?
Holy cow -- good find on the video Pam. Heard all about this but never saw a video. Is this machine old? A demo unit? Did they fix any of this before using it widely?
@Digital Journal Staff
Holy cow -- good find on the video Pam. Heard all about this but never seen a video. Is this machine old? A demo unit? Did they fix any of this before using it widely?
From what I am reading and researching this is an exact duplicate of what they are using today......this video was posted January 8th, 2007......
BlackBoxVoting.org has tons of really amazing information! I am on the trail of something else that is so bizarre, well, you don't know whether to laugh or cry!
@Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
This machine looks exactly like the machines I have been sliding my ballot into for a number of years here in Minnesota.
We still scratch an 'X' off using a pencil and a tiny piece of paper while standing behind a 49-cent piece of cardboard. I've done that for both provincial and federal elections.
I have voted in one municipal election where I filled out a scan-tron style bubble sheet that was passed through a machine but it looked more sophisticated than this thing.
There is a "conspiracy theory" out there that the call for this recount will only serve to justify to the public that the votes were tabulated correctly and set everyone's mind at ease. It is being considered a trap, and one that should not be considered valid for the main reason - there is no chain of possession on these machines nor the paper ballots since the ballots were closed. No one can readily identify exactly who's hands have been on them, and because of this, a recount is pointless.
"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."
As Tobi says, "A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited."
I'll go further than that. The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit.
She went on to say the following:
"This is high stakes.
"You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness.
"And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I have come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours.
"In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight.
"We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged...don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B for a rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH?
@Chris Hogg
We still scratch an 'X' off using a pencil and a tiny piece of paper while standing behind a 49-cent piece of cardboard. I've done that for both provincial and federal elections.
I have voted in one municipal election where I filled out a scan-tron style bubble sheet that was passed through a machine but it looked more sophisticated than this thing.
... and voting irregularities or calls for recounts are rare in Canada -- at any level of government............?
@Helena Handbasket
... and voting irregularities or calls for recounts are rare in Canada -- at any level of government............?
No idea?
Pam brings up a point that there is no way to tell who put each ballot in a box now. But the same can be said for the old fashioned way -- if someone really wanted to, I'm sure they could fill a box with ballots that are illegitimate.
How about implementing the KISS method (i.e. Keep It Simple Stupid):
Elections have three basic attack vectors:
1. Access to voting (voter registration polls, purges, and stuffing)
2. Fairness (dirty tricks like sending people to the wrong polling place, or putting out false campaign literature)
3. Counting (correctly counting and adding up votes, and keeping the chain of custody intact)
'It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.' — Albert Einstein
Two ways to simplify and remove inside attacks from vote counting:
1. Chain of custody: Voter marks ballot. Voter deposits ballot in a translucent ballot box that sits in full public view all day. When polls close, ballots are removed from ballot box in full public view. Before being transported anywhere, they are counted in full public view.
2. Counting: Ballot counting is physically positioned so that members of the public can view ballot faces as they are counted, with a zoom lens if needed. Allow the public to videotape each ballot face if they wish.
Simple ways to count in public:
Method A. Position real people such that observers can see the face of each ballot they count. Allow the public to videotape ballots as they are counted at the polling place.
Method B. For technology fans: Place each ballot, one by one, into optical scan machine. Scan them only when polls close, while still at the polling place. Position the scanner and the feed tray so that the public can capture close-up view of each ballot as it is fed into the scanner, one by one.
Counting method A, with no technology, can be done right now in every small jurisdiction in America, and with planning and recruitment, can be done in large jurisdictions if there is a public and governmental will to do so.
Counting method B, using technology, can be done right now with no extra cost outlay in every jurisdiction that has optical scan machines.
Simple adjustments need to be made to achieve public counting with public chain of custody:
- In some states, it is against the law to count in public with public chain of custody. (Really.) Laws can be changed.
- Mail-in voting has special chain of custody issues and needs to be examined more carefully.
- Some states use double-sided ballots. Ballot layout or procedures need to be slightly adjusted in this case.
- Some states prohibit videotaping after the polls close. The public needs a way to document with meaningful evidence. Prohibitions on videotaping the vote-counting need to be rolled back.
Makes sense to me. Let the public oversee what is going on....give it back to the "sheepl" instead of private corporations with closed source codes, no public knowledge of the chain of ownership of the ballots or machines, private counting in closed back rooms.....tranparency is the key here.....wouldn't you agree?
I will volunteer my time if this were the methods being implemented.
Pam brings up a point that there is no way to tell who put each ballot in a box now. But the same can be said for the old fashioned way -- if someone really wanted to, I'm sure they could fill a box with ballots that are illegitimate.
You guys will love this bit of news: Diebold Election Systems Inc. is now changing its name. They apparently want to sell their voting machine business so they've changed it because they've had no buyers.
"Diebold said in a statement that it made the decision in part because of "the rapidly evolving political uncertainties and controversies surrounding state and jurisdiction purchases of electronic voting systems." (source)
it escapes me how a simple thing like voting has become such a mess in both the usa and canada we hardly get 40% turn out and still mess that up what a shame
Everything has to be videotaped and monitored. Why not let people who don't vote and don't care count the ballots? No vested interest by anyone. The people who count them now have a vested interest in determining the winner or loser. They want to see a particular candidate or party win. Maybe involving people who don't vote and don't care who wins or loses will help in this process.
Email
Print
Share
Democrats and Republicans Agree: Recount New Hampsire Votes
