you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Diebold? Hillary’s NH Win and a Primary Vote-Counter’s Observations

This guy (an Obama supporter)  is theorizing that the reason Hillary Clinton won the primary in New Hampshire, confounding pollsters, is that whereas in Iowa, people voted by raising their hands, 81 percent of New Hampshire precincts used Diebold voting machines.   He has interesting diagrams posted to support his theory.   But near the end of the thread is this  comment from New Hampshire volunteer, an Obama supporter, who actually counted the votes that night in his precinct:

Dan Says:
January 10, 2008 at 11:07 am

Thanks for the data. I too looked at it and I don’t trust the “Diebold Factor” either.

However, I must say this… I live in central NH and I volunteered in our small town to work on the voter checklist and to count votes on Tuesday evening. I’ve been doing this for over 15 years now, so you can see the trends happening as you start counting the votes.

Turnout was huge… we had almost 200 new voter registrations this week. Many, of them young people, but ‘lot’s’ of women, young and old. About 1,700 votes were cast in our town, so new voters made up about 10%-12% of the total. (Note: These people never got ‘polled’ in the lead up to the primary because they are ‘not’ on the voter checklist prior to election day.)

My counting partner and I counted 201 of the democratic (paper) ballots after the polls closed. I was hoping Obama would win, but the Clinton votes kept adding up.

At the end of the counting Clinton had 80 out of the 201 votes we hand counted… Obama had 63. That’s 40% to 32% in our small sampling. This ‘trend’ was pretty darn close to the final results.

925 Democratic ballots were cast in our town… Clinton got 37%, Obama 32%, Edwards 22%, and others got the rest.

As much as I’d like to blame it all on Diebold… and I don’t trust those machines for a minute… she beat him fair and square in our small town.

One other thing… if you look at the town by town results… look for Hanover & Lebanon (Dartmouth), Plymouth… (Plymouth State Univ), Durham (UNH), Henniker (N.E. College), New London (Colby Coll.) and Keene (Keene State College).

Obama carried those towns easily, but he didn’t do well in the mill towns like Berlin, Gorham, Franklin and other traditional blue collar communities.

The Obama kids were ‘jumpin,’ came to my house several times. My guess…they were dyin’ to fill out every survey and poll they could find!

Working Moms? Survey? Poll? “Sorry young fella…I just got out of work…I barely had time to vote…I’ve gotta get home and cook dinner, clean the house and get the kids ready for bed… no time for a silly exit poll.”

This is encouraging, that “lots” of women, young and old turned out!  And this report is reassuring as to the validity of the New Hampshire results.   But why are precincts using Diebold Accuvote machines after what we’ve been through in the last two presidential elections?  Surely they could figure out something else!   You wonder if we will ever recover from the scandals and corruption of the Bush regime.  




3 thoughts on “Diebold? Hillary’s NH Win and a Primary Vote-Counter’s Observations

  1. Why are we using computers, period? Any use of computers in elections is an open invitation to fraud. However, Randi Rhodes said today those crying foul over this primary ignored two significant segments of the voters, the undecided and wavering Edwards supporters. Both segments broke decisively for Ms. Clinton. I am suspicious of polls in any event. Too many factors can skew them.

    Posted by Aletha | January 11, 2008, 6:28 am
  2. I sympathize with folks who don’t trust Diebold, but seriously…. You folks are not criticizing the machines here, you are questioning to integrity of those of us who work at the polls.

    ANY method of vote counting can be rigged. What you need to concentrate on is having pollworkers who are invested in the idea of democracy and who, if they see someone slanting the votes, can and will speak up.

    I’ll be working the polls here in Florida, both early voting (this time we are still using touch screens -Diebold) and for the primary election itself we’ll be using optical scan machines (also Diebold)

    THe optical scans, as the note above tells you, must match the actual paper ballots that people fill out. VERY hard to rig those, no matter what company makes them.

    Your election officials run tests against the voting machines before every election. True, the touch screens are problematic because we don’t have the paper ballots to recount if a problem comes up and are problematic because Diebold won’t let us see the software, but that will change.

    Just please… if you don’t understand how your own counting is done, find out. If you don’t trust your poll workers, then get your asses out there, volunteer like me, and keep an eye on the process and learn a thing or two and actually DO it rather than bitch afterwards.

    Posted by majkia | January 11, 2008, 12:28 pm


  1. Pingback: Phawker » Blog Archive » OBAMA: Lady Gov Of AZ Follows Kerry Endorsement - January 11, 2008

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,598,919 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo