Atlantis Online
March 05, 2021, 11:46:12 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ruins of 7,000-year-old city found in Egypt oasis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080129/wl_mideast_afp/egyptarchaeology
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Kucinich calls for New Hampshire recount


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kucinich calls for New Hampshire recount  (Read 51 times)
Kris Conover
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2333



« on: January 11, 2008, 10:27:28 am »

Kucinich calls for New Hampshire recount
Posted: 10:30 AM ET
 



Kucinich is calling for a recount of New Hampshire.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) — Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted.

The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.

In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.

Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Dennis Kucinich



Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Quest4Truth
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 103



« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2008, 11:58:19 am »

� Premier Election Solutions is the new name for Diebold - same company, same people, different name.

� Diebold is a radically pro-Republican company.

� The Republicans want to run against Hillary, not Obama.

� Diebold made the optical scanners that counted the votes in the cities (votes were counted by hand in rural areas).

� Hillary was stronger in the cities, Obama in rural areas.

� Obama's vote count was almost exactly as expected and as reported in exit polls.

� Hillary's vote count was about 10% higher than expected by everyone, including her campaign.

� All Diebold had to do was set the software to count every vote for Hillary 1.1 times and she won.

Put the focus where it belongs on vote counting fraud.

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%


http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/
----------------
exactly and good on Kucinich http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01112008.html
Report Spam   Logged
Quest4Truth
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 103



« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2008, 12:00:20 pm »

BILL MAHER ON NH PRIMARY: 'I'm Bothered That a Private Company (Diebold) Runs the Machines, Are Only Ones Who Know What Went On'
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5550
Says 'Election All for Naught if We Can't Trust Results'

Catherine Crier: 'Glad This Controversy's Come Up, Will Elevate Voting Machine Issue In Minds of American People'...

From tonight's Real Time with Bill Maher, with guests Catherine Crier of CourtTV, Mark Cuban of HDNet, and Tony Snow of Fox "News"/White House. On the topic of concerns about the New Hampshire primary results, and Diebold's sole-control over 80% of the ballots in the state...






Some key quotes from the video...

MAHER: I'm not saying something went wrong, but it does bother me that a private company runs the polling machines and that only they certainly, seem to know what went on in that [New Hampshire election].

CRIER: What I'm glad about is that whole controversy's come up and that they're going to go back and take a look. It's going to elevate the whole voting machine issue in the minds of the American people before the elections

[APPLAUSE]

MAHER: We have so much debate, and there's so much interest in this election…but it all comes to naught if we can't trust what the result is.
Report Spam   Logged
Quest4Truth
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 103



« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2008, 12:07:02 pm »

The REAL Question (for now) About New Hampshire
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5546

PLUS: More to Come on All of it Later Tonight...



As you might have guessed, I'm buried for the moment in a blizzard of incoming calls, emails, and more (such as bad, and misleading, articles and blog items about all of this), even while trying to both learn more details on a number of fronts and keep up with media appearances to discuss the issues so Americans might better understand what's really going on here, and what the concerns really are. So I'll have much more on all of this tonight, as I get caught up with a number of related items that I've been working on at the same time, while trying to keep up with all of the above. Until then, consider this an Open Thread. And I hope you'll help me, by continuing to spread the facts about the questions at hand.

Those questions begin with this concern:

While pollsters and the MSM and even theoretically-Progressive bloggers are speculating about what might have gone wrong in dozens of different, independent, transparent pre-election polls --- almost all of which found precisely the same information --- very few seem to be questioning whether the completely unverified results, from 80% of New Hampshire, counted on hackable, error-prone Diebold machines, completely programmed, controlled, and operated by a single, private, less-than-respectable company (LHS Associates), were actually accurate in the first place.

At the same time, evidence exists that even the Exit Polls showed Obama was winning throughout the day, and there have been a number of eyebrow-raising questions about the reported results themselves, as discovered so far, during independent analysis of them. Not enough anomalies have yet been found, in my opinion, to raise any large red flags, but certainly a still-growing number of anomalies for yellow ones.

I'll add that even if the ballots, if they are ever actually counted, turn out to reveal a different result than reported, it could be due to error, not fraud, and if fraud, it needn't have been committed by anybody related, in any way, to the Clinton camp.

I believe we all deserve to know if the results, as reported, were accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is the sensible and responsible question for the moment. And anybody who offers you reasons for why Clinton won (perhaps she did, we cannot know for sure at this time) or why Obama lost (perhaps he did, we cannot know for sure at this time) is doing nothing but irresponsibly speculating.
Report Spam   Logged
Kris Conover
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2333



« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2008, 06:34:42 pm »




N.H. Secretary of State gives candidates estimate of re-count cost

CONCORD, N.H. - New Hampshire’s Secretary of State’s office has given Republican Albert Howard and Democrat Dennis Kucinich estimated costs to re-count their partys’ presidential primaries last week.

It would cost Howard, $57,600; Kucinich would pay $69,600.

The costs were calculated at 24 cents per ballot. There were about 290,000 Democratic ballots cast and 240,000 GOP ballots.

Each candidate has put down refundable $2,000 deposits. There was no word from either campaign Monday on whether they will pay the balance before the deadline of 3 p.m. Tuesday, but "there is every indication that they plan to," Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said.

Scanlan said a re-count would begin Wednesday and could take weeks to complete.

If either candidate would like the count to start in particular voting precincts, the Secretary of State’s office would "attempt to honor" that request, Scanlan said. The candidates can end the re-count at anytime.

Howard received 44 votes and Kucinich received about 3,900.

Kucinich has said he requested the re-count because of "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of the results. He has emphasized that he does not expect a re-count to find significant changes to his vote total.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1066488
Report Spam   Logged
Kris Conover
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2333



« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2008, 06:36:56 pm »

That's a lot of money!  I sure wouldn't have the money to pay it.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2008, 05:38:55 pm »

Take the recount right out of the states' own budgetary surpluses.  Put those billions to use saving democracy.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy