Town Of Sutton Confirms Ron Paul Totals Were 31, Not Zero

RockPusher · 01-09-2008, 02:09 PM

1-7-08: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO.

I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error.

This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results.

A Web site here: Where's The Voter-verifiable Paper Trail for each ballot cast? has more on fraud techniques with hand counted paper ballots. You'll have to dig for it -- or Google, and the excellent research on this is Theresa Hommel from the state of New York.

Black Box Voting - Welcome to www.BlackBoxVoting.org, Citizen center for elections oversight

Ardentfrost · 01-09-2008, 02:11 PM

ack, don't put this in here! This is a graveyard for Ron Burgandy posts

bheld · 01-09-2008, 02:44 PM

Holy shit, 31 votes could have changed the whole outcome. Why isn't CNN picking this up?

thewise1 · 01-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Definitely don't want to be a negative nancy, but this is pointless.

The people of this country don't want Paul, for better or worse. I do, but that doesn't matter.

RockPusher · 01-09-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

Holy shit, 31 votes could have changed the whole outcome. Why isn't CNN picking this up?

0 votes reported for a district where 31 votes are confirmed. This is a clear demonstration of voting inaccuracy, and yes, it is BIG news to people with more than two brain cells.

This is about a 10% discrepancy in one small region. This could very well be more widespread. This could very well be systematic.

More info will come in as voters confirm their votes.

JaJae · 01-09-2008, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by RockPusher

0 votes reported for a district where 31 votes are confirmed. This is a clear demonstration of voting inaccuracy, and yes, it is BIG news to people with more than two brain cells.

This is about a 10% discrepancy in one small region. This could very well be more widespread. This could very well be systematic.

More info will come in as voters confirm their votes.

Perhaps this carried over to Clinton/Obama

WickedLou9 · 01-09-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by RockPusher

0 votes reported for a district where 31 votes are confirmed. This is a clear demonstration of voting inaccuracy, and yes, it is BIG news to people with more than two brain cells.

This is about a 10% discrepancy in one small region. This could very well be more widespread. This could very well be systematic.

More info will come in as voters confirm their votes.

On what data do you base your assumption that this is happening everywhere? This district didn't try to hide anything. They made a mistake, they reported it and corrected thier results.

WickedLou9 · 01-09-2008, 03:42 PM

Not that it really matters that much but the population of Sutton as of the 2000 census was 1500 people. I imagine it's probably closer to 1700 now. So with 60% voter turnout as is typical in NH, thats 1000 voters. 31 out of 1000 is not insignificant but it would not have altered the outcome of the voting.

RockPusher · 01-09-2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

On what data do you base your assumption that this is happening everywhere? This district didn't try to hide anything. They made a mistake, they reported it and corrected thier results.

I did not make any assumption that it has happened, but it is a definite possibility.

"They made a mistake" is not an appropriate answer or solution to the issue of one candidate's votes not being reported... at all.

Of course they fixed the results when it was pointed out. That doesn't mean that there was no intent to defraud, just that they corrected the data when they were caught with a BOGUS count.

thewise1 · 01-09-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by RockPusher

I did not make any assumption that it has happened, but it is a definite possibility.

"They made a mistake" is not an appropriate answer or solution to the issue of one candidate's votes not being reported... at all.

Of course they fixed the results when it was pointed out. That doesn't mean that there was no intent to defraud, just that they corrected the data when they were caught with a BOGUS count.

Check your premises - there are hundreds of precincts in New Hampshire (sorry, I don't have a specific number even though I googled). As a result, the possibility of human error (or conspiracy) in all of them drops rapidly.

At this point, it's a fool's hope. Even if there was some conspiracy that caused this, if they can do that in that many precincts and go undetected, then we are obviously dealing with a power that we aren't capable of fighting.

I don't think that's the case anyway.

Ardentfrost · 01-09-2008, 04:02 PM

I don't think the hope is human error, but conspiracy. This is a pretty obvious reaction.

JaJae · 01-09-2008, 04:04 PM

I think if it were conspiracy they would have reduced his votes, not erased them all. Sounds like human error.

... unless that's what they want you to think

Ardentfrost · 01-09-2008, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think if it were conspiracy they would have reduced his votes, not erased them all. Sounds like human error.

... unless that's what they want you to think

lol

Seriously, anyone who really wants to pry into how bad the error was is free to do so, but I have no hope that any earth-shattering evidence exists to be found. People want their big government AND they want to bitch about taxes.

bheld · 01-09-2008, 05:48 PM

I hope the Ron Paul people stay involved in politics even though he's not going to get the nomination.

RockPusher · 01-09-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Check your premises - there are hundreds of precincts in New Hampshire (sorry, I don't have a specific number even though I googled). As a result, the possibility of human error (or conspiracy) in all of them drops rapidly.

At this point, it's a fool's hope. Even if there was some conspiracy that caused this, if they can do that in that many precincts and go undetected, then we are obviously dealing with a power that we aren't capable of fighting.

I don't think that's the case anyway.

The votes were counted correctly at the county. It is where the votes for all precincts were totaled that the "error" occurred. What that means is that if this was intentional, it could very well have been all counties.

motivez · 01-09-2008, 07:00 PM

Well, there should be some sort of investigation into how the error occurred, but there's no way it'd change anything.

Paul started too late spending money and didn't really a solid ground campaign, which was what I'd been concerned about for months now

It showed in the results

Fed Up · 01-09-2008, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, there should be some sort of investigation into how the error occurred, but there's no way it'd change anything.

Paul started too late spending money and didn't really a solid ground campaign, which was what I'd been concerned about for months now

It showed in the results

True....

He's got 10 more months to get the word out though...

Fed Up

RockPusher · 01-09-2008, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Fed Up

True....

He's got 10 more months to get the word out though...

Fed Up

I am afraid that he doesn't. If you aren't registered already and have already volunteered/run for delegate positions, it is probably too late.

I do hope that existing repugs come to good side though.

Simius · 01-10-2008, 02:04 AM

Reading thewise1's posts makes me

. I'm not sure why though. I get the same feeling from a lot of people who have become politically interested the first time... watching them realize that just because they really believe in something, doesn't mean it will win just gets me I guess. (Not that I think thewise1 is a political n00b by any means... maybe I'm just getting

because I like him)

Anyway, I had a real reason to post something. There are always errors in elections. Vote counting machines misread ballots, people are only human, etc. So 1 precinct fucking up isn't all that surprising. It sucks it happens, but watcha gonna do?

I hope people don't feel too disheartened by this and leave with a "the system doesn't work at all" taste in their mouth. Part of the problem is we get instant results so there is no time for them to double check their numbers and make sure everything is on the up and up before we find out about it. I imagine had this not been noticed, the checks in the system would have caught and fixed the error before the vote was certified.

Since we are talking about it... does anyone know the process they use to certify the votes? I imagine there is a redundant system where they send in the data by a different means than their original report about the vote count and then double check to make sure it all matches up. I have no idea though.

7960 · 01-10-2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think if it were conspiracy they would have reduced his votes, not erased them all. Sounds like human error.

... unless that's what they want you to think

VIZZINI

Now, a clever man would reduce the number of votes, because he would know that only a great fool would not notice if they were all removed. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not believe it was a conspiracy. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not believe it was an accident.

MAN IN BLACK
(And now there's a trace of nervousness beginning)

You've made your decision then7

VIZZINI

Not remotely. Because Sutton is a town in New South Wales Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not believe it was an accident.

MAN IN BLACK

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

VIZZINI

Wait till I get going! Where was I?

MAN IN BLACK

Australia.

VIZZINI

Yes -- Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known Sutton's origin, so I can clearly not believe it was a conspiracy.

MAN IN BLACK
(very nervous)

You're just stalling now.

VIZZINI
(cackling)

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

(stares at the Man in Black)

You've been campaigning non-stop, which means you're exceptionally savvy. So, you could have set the votes to 0, trusting nobody would notice. So I can clearly not believe it was an conspiracy. But, you've also bested my fund raising which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man loves a conspiracy, so I can clearly not believe it was an accident.

MAN IN BLACK

You're trying to trick me into giving away something -- it won't work --

VIZZINI
(triumphant)

It has worked -- you've given everything away -- I know where the votes are.

MAN IN BLACK
(fool's courage)

Then make your choice.

VIZZINI

I will. And I choose --

And suddenly he stops, points at something behind the Man In Black.

VIZZINI

-- what in the world can that be?

CUT TO:

THE MAN IN BLACK,
turning around, looking.

MAN IN BLACK

What? Where? I don't see anything.

CUT TO:

VIZZINI,
busily switching the voting boxes while the Man In Black has his head turned.

VIZZINI

Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.

The Man In Black turns to face him again. Vizzini starts to laugh.
MAN IN BLACK

What's so funny?

VIZZINI

I'll tell you in a minute. First, let's count -- me from my voting box, and you from yours.

And he picks up his voting box. The Man In Black picks up the one in front of him. As they both start to count, Vizzini hesitates a moment.

Then, allowing the Man In Black to count first, he picks up the ballots.
MAN IN BLACK

You guessed wrong.

VIZZINI
(roaring with laughter)

You only think I guessed wrong --

(louder now)

-- that's what's so funny! I switched voting boxes when your back was turned. You fool.

CUT TO:

THE