PDA

View Full Version : Hand Count in NH Shows 15% For Ron Paul




literatim
01-09-2008, 06:06 PM
Edit: Hand counted townships do extraordinarily have a higher percentage than diebold. Ron Paul loses over 2% of the vote when Diebold counted townships are added to the hand counted townships.

Ron Paul
Total Votes: 18,276
Avg. Overall: 7.650%

Votes by Machine: 13,671
Avg. Overall by Machine Votes: 7.233%

Avg. Overall by by Hand: 4,600
Avg. Overallby Hand: 9.235%

Machine VS Hand: -2.001%

Rudy Giuliani
Total Votes: 20,387
Avg. Overall 8.533%

Votes by Machine 16,327
Avg. Overallby Machine 8.638%

Votes by Hand 4,057
Avg. Overall by Hand 8.144%

Machine VS Hand 0.494%

Giuliani vs Paul Hand Count:
Ron Paul: 9.235%
Giuliani: 8.144%

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php

Joe3113
01-09-2008, 06:08 PM
Jesus Christ Monkey Balls!!! Are you serious????

RPDelegate
01-09-2008, 06:09 PM
Interesting...

jasonuher
01-09-2008, 06:11 PM
While I do think there was something fishy going on in NH, this isn't it.

Almost of all of the hand ballot counties are small, so it is possible that every one in urban areas hates Ron Paul (maybe it's the no welfare thing?)

All I'm saying is that this is interesting, but not necessarily telling. We need evidence that vote tampering occurred. And we need it get copies of it to blackbox, moveon, the NH AG, and everyone who wants them.

aspiringconstitutionalist
01-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Wow... I've been one of those "Don't talk about conspiracies, just move on" people, but THIS is really weird...

dirknb@hotmail.com
01-09-2008, 06:14 PM
About what I thought it would be,

VoluntaryMan
01-09-2008, 06:16 PM
Almost of all of the hand ballot counties are small, so it is possible that every one in urban areas hates Ron Paul (maybe it's the no welfare thing?)

In a Republican primary???:rolleyes:

Hook
01-09-2008, 06:17 PM
The problem is a thing statisticians call "lurking variables" i.e. correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. It could be like what #4 was saying, or even something else. That doesn't mean fraud didn't happen, it just means you are going to have to find something more substantive.

Keep digging.

Bradley in DC
01-09-2008, 06:20 PM
These percentages don't show what the difference was BEFORE the hand count. For all of the information you show here, it's possible that Dr. Paul's vote in those places declined. (I'm not arguing that it did, I'm just saying we need to know what the difference is.)

dirknb@hotmail.com
01-09-2008, 06:23 PM
Interesting that the hand count districts reflected the poll that had him at 14%

freelance
01-09-2008, 06:29 PM
Wow... I've been one of those "Don't talk about conspiracies, just move on" people, but THIS is really weird...

Oh God, I just love a good epiphany!

Hangly Man
01-09-2008, 06:32 PM
That sounds about right.

JustAnotherV
01-09-2008, 06:48 PM
what do the diebold counties correspond with? If it is increased population/more urban/proximity to Boston, etc., then it might be due more to demographics than vote fraud. Exit polls were also showing Paul doing better the more rural the area.

Swmorgan77
01-09-2008, 06:56 PM
Yup, time to wake up. Conspiracies DO happen. In fact, its one of the most common criminal charges in the U.S..

They'r even MORE likely to happen when the otherwise vigilant public is systematically conditioned to view "conspiracy" as synonymous with "fiction". Kind of makes for good cover for a conspiracy.

Wyurm
01-09-2008, 07:05 PM
Yup, time to wake up. Conspiracies DO happen. In fact, its one of the most common criminal charges in the U.S..

They'r even MORE likely to happen when the otherwise vigilant public is systematically conditioned to view "conspiracy" as synonymous with "fiction". Kind of makes for good cover for a conspiracy.

Wouldn't it be interesting if people believed that murder didn't happen?

I had a feeling there would be a difference between hand count and machine count.

humanic
01-09-2008, 07:05 PM
Read my signiture. Don't be fools, this needs to be thoroughly investigated right now. Recount wherever possible.

linusPAULing
01-09-2008, 07:10 PM
We need good youtube videos about this! Anyone have the time to make one?

Avalon
01-09-2008, 07:23 PM
These percentages don't show what the difference was BEFORE the hand count. For all of the information you show here, it's possible that Dr. Paul's vote in those places declined. (I'm not arguing that it did, I'm just saying we need to know what the difference is.) I don't understand. Are you saying you want poll data from these precincts from before the primary to see how they compare with the results (looking for a trend) then compare that to polls in diebold districts vs. their results?

mconder
01-09-2008, 07:32 PM
This is certainly compelling.

yongrel
01-09-2008, 07:37 PM
That is certainly interesting. I want to see some more concrete evidence before i leap to conclusions though. Were there any diebold precinct that had above 10%?

dblee
01-09-2008, 07:37 PM
i've been a skeptic, but this is worth looking into.

Ron LOL
01-09-2008, 07:38 PM
I don't understand. Are you saying you want poll data from these precincts from before the primary to see how they compare with the results (looking for a trend) then compare that to polls in diebold districts vs. their results?

Not what he meant at all.

Brad rightly points out that the "evidence" doesn't compare the hand count to the whatever-was-before-the-hand-count count. Of course, the OP doesn't seem to indicate whether these "hand counts" were originally Diebold counts. I guess this is what Brad was assuming as the case in his post.

wildflower
01-09-2008, 07:39 PM
Yup, time to wake up. Conspiracies DO happen. In fact, its one of the most common criminal charges in the U.S..

They'r even MORE likely to happen when the otherwise vigilant public is systematically conditioned to view "conspiracy" as synonymous with "fiction". Kind of makes for good cover for a conspiracy.

Very good point. They have done their best to put a stigma on the word 'conspiracy' so that any wrongdoing is dismissed, because people fear being called a "conspiracy theorist."

That's why I say, it isn't a conspiracy, and I don't like using that word. What is happening in this country is corruption, plain and simple.

Avalon
01-09-2008, 07:41 PM
Not what he meant at all.

Brad rightly points out that the "evidence" doesn't compare the hand count to the whatever-was-before-the-hand-count count. Of course, the OP doesn't seem to indicate whether these "hand counts" were originally Diebold counts. I guess this is what Brad was assuming as the case in his post. Ah, well I don't think there have been any recounts, have there? I'm pretty sure this post just refers to the 19% of the vote that is counted by hand (mostly in rural areas).

TinaBopper
01-09-2008, 07:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecdkCVD7mM&feature=related






This video has already been posted, yes, but for the sake of getting this some views, I'm posting it with a more relevant title. If you live in New Hampshire, or live anywhere in the U.S. with a telephone, demand a hand-count of all New Hampshire ballots. Watch the video to find out why.

realist
01-09-2008, 08:09 PM
Not what he meant at all.

Brad rightly points out that the "evidence" doesn't compare the hand count to the whatever-was-before-the-hand-count count. Of course, the OP doesn't seem to indicate whether these "hand counts" were originally Diebold counts. I guess this is what Brad was assuming as the case in his post.



HUH??????

I thought these districts were hand count only. I thought the original poster was susggesting that in counties where only hand counts were done... Pauls percentage of the overall vote was always higher than 10% (and apparently higher in many). If true, this is interesting, and suggests a possible problem, but proves nothing.

What "difference" is Brad referring to? I took it that he was implying that if there was no before and after with which to "prove" a difference, then it proves nothing.

AWF
01-09-2008, 08:19 PM
Difference could be demographics. More importantly, how did the historical voting patterns in the hand count towns compare to the diebold ones? If it's available, have they shown a higher share for Libertarian, Constitution, Buchanan, Nader, etc? If not, then you can at least begin to consider the fraud hypothesis but it's hard to determine, isn't it?

I think we're a long way from being able to explicitly accuse anyone or parties of tampering with the diebold programs throughout precincts in NH to delete votes for RP.

SteveMartin
01-09-2008, 08:33 PM
THE O.P. IS WRONG!

Those are selected high-Ron-Paul-voting towns.

See for yourself:
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php

jasonuher
01-09-2008, 08:38 PM
In a Republican primary???:rolleyes:

I was mostly talking about the anti-war independent vote that we were relying on.

daviddee
01-09-2008, 08:39 PM
...

SteveMartin
01-09-2008, 08:42 PM
Also, please factor in that the original post is blatantly false. There are plenty of hand-counted towns where RP got below 10%, and plenty of Diebold-counted towns where he got more than 10%.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php

AMack
01-09-2008, 09:25 PM
Also, please factor in that the original post is blatantly false. There are plenty of hand-counted towns where RP got below 10%, and plenty of Diebold-counted towns where he got more than 10%.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php

Yes but if diebold machines weren't being used, would Dr. Paul have had even more than he did? The source code could be written to convert 1 of every 10 votes to a vote for someone else. Hence, a town in which RP may have recieved 14% could have become 12.6%. That is still above 10%, yet not accurate.

TN_VOL
01-09-2008, 09:49 PM
I've been convinced of fraud concerning our elections for some time now, glad the rest of you guys could join me.

Knightskye
01-09-2008, 09:53 PM
Interesting...

It's not interesting; it's frightening. Ron could be in 3rd or 4th place, or maybe even better than that. But everyone thinks he got 5th place.

When'll they be done hand-counting the ballots?

amy31416
01-09-2008, 09:54 PM
Also, please factor in that the original post is blatantly false. There are plenty of hand-counted towns where RP got below 10%, and plenty of Diebold-counted towns where he got more than 10%.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php

Thanks for the link, it'll be interesting to analyze.

bighairycaveman
01-09-2008, 09:56 PM
Where did you guys find a list of all the polling places and whether or not they are hand counted or using the diebold?

dirknb@hotmail.com
01-09-2008, 10:02 PM
never mind

BeFranklin
01-09-2008, 10:08 PM
Motive is shown, because the Fox ban wasn't normal and is right there in the open. Otherwise, they'd say 'but no one has ever been shown to want to do Ron Paul's run in' yadadada

Mortikhi
01-09-2008, 10:11 PM
if true, what are the 'powers-that-be' going to do about it?

TwiLeXia
01-09-2008, 10:11 PM
So I guess we didn't do as poorly as we had thought.

BeFranklin
01-09-2008, 10:12 PM
It's not interesting; it's frightening. Ron could be in 3rd or 4th place, or maybe even better than that. But everyone thinks he got 5th place.

When'll they be done hand-counting the ballots?

The difference between Ron Paul and Guillinaioitrtiuo equals the Other vote, which wasn't counted; but I'd say if it wasn't counted because it wasn't 'statistically' significant, that is your error in the count right there. Ie that has to be viewed as a tie unless all the votes are counted.

NH is a winner take all state though, isn't it? So this doesn't change anything except perception.

Mark
01-09-2008, 10:14 PM
Where did you guys find a list of all the polling places and whether or not they are hand counted or using the diebold?

Is this what you're asking about? Scroll down towards the bottom of the page.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php

BeFranklin
01-09-2008, 10:16 PM
Very good point. They have done their best to put a stigma on the word 'conspiracy' so that any wrongdoing is dismissed, because people fear being called a "conspiracy theorist."

That's why I say, it isn't a conspiracy, and I don't like using that word. What is happening in this country is corruption, plain and simple.

Lets be clear who "they" are, being one of the people used to pointing out wrong doing in the 90s. They seem to be the neocons, and I well remember when they hijacked the movement, started kicking people off of Free Republic, and mocking them on places like Fox news.

Mark
01-09-2008, 10:19 PM
The difference between Ron Paul and Guillinaioitrtiuo equals the Other vote, which wasn't counted; but I'd say if it wasn't counted because it wasn't 'statistically' significant, that is your error in the count right there. Ie that has to be viewed as a tie unless all the votes are counted.

NH is a winner take all state though, isn't it? So this doesn't change anything except perception.

Changes what perception? That our Republic's voting system is honest and true?

I think that's a MOST IMPORTANT perception to CHANGE. Wouldn't you agree?

This goes WAY beyond THIS election. We're fighting for our country here.

'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes' - Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)

Mark
01-09-2008, 10:23 PM
Some people need to figure out that we need to "get it while the gettin's good".

Opportunity often ONLY KNOCKS ONCE.

Maybe the hidden meaning behind Ron running isn't to get him elected as much as it is to expose the evil going on behind the scenes, and

correct it before it's too late.

BeFranklin
01-09-2008, 10:24 PM
Changes what perception? That our Republic's voting system is honest and true?

I think that's a MOST IMPORTANT perception to CHANGE. Wouldn't you agree?

This goes WAY beyond THIS election. We're fighting for our country here.

'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes' - Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)

I'm not saying it isn't important; I'm pointing out how much (the enemy) relies on perception in everything going on. I'm guessing fraud went on, and trying to get it investigated will get some response like "well it isn't important because its a winner take all state, and Ron Paul still didn't win, and its just a primary" yadadada.

So lets up the demand. We have to fix this before the general election, so it has to be investigated.

literatim
01-09-2008, 10:36 PM
I edited my post and added a lot of detail as more accurate information was pointed out.

Mark
01-09-2008, 10:43 PM
I'm not saying it isn't important; I'm pointing out how much (the enemy) relies on perception in everything going on. I'm guessing fraud went on, and trying to get it investigated will get some response like "well it isn't important because its a winner take all state, and Ron Paul still didn't win, and its just a primary" yadadada.

So lets up the demand. We have to fix this before the general election, so it has to be investigated.

Given the MSM's FUD policy against Ron, and Righteous Principles in general - frankly my friend, I don't give a care.

I don't care about what ANY of them say. I care about standing up for Righteousness period. Those opposed be CURSED.

DXDoug
01-09-2008, 10:52 PM
Given the MSM's FUD policy against Ron, and Righteous Principles in general - frankly my friend, I don't give a care.

I don't care about what ANY of them say. I care about standing up for Righteousness period. Those opposed be CURSED.

Indeed! ;)

ronpaulblogsdotcom
01-10-2008, 12:13 AM
By the number of independants in NH, and his numbers with independants in Iowa, I had him at about 15% as well.

Joe3113
01-10-2008, 01:05 AM
That is certainly interesting. I want to see some more concrete evidence before i leap to conclusions though. Were there any diebold precinct that had above 10%?

The burden should not be on us to provide evidence. The people who ran the elections need to PROVIDE US with the evidence that it was fair.