Author Topic: Voter Fraud Recount Revealed: THE USUAL SUSPECTS  (Read 65481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pupil

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
    • Galactic Defender Zik!
Re: New Hampshire Primary Concerns '08
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2008, 02:56:09 pm »
http://www.sos.nh.gov/ has it still up for the world to see...


Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New Hampshire Primary Concerns '08
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2008, 03:23:58 pm »
Where's the Paper Trail for Each Ballot Cast?
http://www.wheresthepaper.org/
.....A Web Site Dedicated to Election Integrity.....
.....Home of the Fraudulent Voting Machine.....


A Chance to Make Votes Count, Editorial, New York Times, Sept. 6, 2007

It's easier to "explain away" ballots lost on electronic voting machines than lost boxes of paper ballots. Just call it a "glitch" and then no one is responsible for it.

Electronic voting undermines democracy -- because the legitimacy of elections requires us to handle votes in a way that ordinary, non-technical citizens can observe, understand, and attest is proper and honest.

Democracy 1-2-3

What's the problem with computers in elections? The blue display below is a teaching demonstration called the Fraudulent Voting Machine. Please use it to run some elections, and then read the explanation below it.

The demo starts by asking you to choose a "machine test" or "real election." Machine tests give accurate final tallies, but real elections might not! This is because, in a real election, one particular candidate is programmed to win.

Is it realistic to demonstrate a program that works two different ways? Yes! If you read the news you know that at least one major manufacturer of voting systems does something similar -- they use one program during tests, and a different program during real elections. And many manufacturers install "patches" -- which means different programming -- just before an election.

The demo runs an election with two candidates, John Doe and Mary Smith. In a "real election" if you enter any votes, Mary Smith will win. Fraud can look totally authentic -- to see for yourself, run a real election and enter more votes for John Doe, or give both candidates the same number of votes. After running your elections, read more below!

 

Explanation

If you ran a "real election" and gave more votes to John Doe, you saw the Fraudulent Voting Machine reverse the tallies (Mary Smith got the votes intended for John Doe, and vice versa). If you gave the same number of votes to both candidates, you saw that one vote was subtracted from John Doe and added to Mary Smith. However, an election director would be 100% within their rights to say that these elections were perfect and that they saw no errors. This is because, unless there is an audit, election personnel can check only one thing -- is the number of voters the same as the number of ballots?

The only reason YOU know the ballots and final tallies were wrong is that you saw ALL the votes being cast. In a real election, each voter has a secret ballot. There isn't any one person who can watch all the ballots being cast so, unless there is an audit, no one can know if the final tallies are right or wrong.

It doesn't matter if the problem was caused by an innocent mistake, malicious intent, an insider, or an outside hacker. Democracy was lost. The ballots were changed by the machine. The vote count was wrong. The wrong candidate won.

Voter-verified paper audit trails, and audits

Voting machines are in the news because the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) offered billions of dollars to the states to replace old lever-type and punched-card voting equipment with new systems. Many states bought "Direct Recording Electronic" voting systems, called DREs. In the November, 2004, election, an estimated 25-30 percent of American voters cast their ballots on DREs.

DREs typically resemble PCs with touch-screen capability and a few buttons instead of a keyboard. Election officials say that voters "like" DREs, but as of September, 2004, 42% of voters said they didn't trust them. The reason? These systems conceal the recording and counting of votes -- and the history of elections shows that whenever these parts of the election process are concealed from public view, errors and fraud will occur.

In other fields, computer systems achieve accuracy (sometimes called "security") by being independently audited on a routine, continuous basis. "Auditing" is any procedure that enables you to prove that the results of normal operation are accurate, or to identify inaccuracies that need correction. Computer security requires more than "safety from hackers" because ordinary errors cause most of the problems. Independent audits are a universally-accepted standard practice in every field where people want accurate record-keeping. Every legitimate computer system in business, industry, and government is audited on a routine, continuous basis.

An independent audit of electronic voting systems would restore people's ability to observe the accuracy of two things -- how ballots were recorded, and how votes were counted. There would be two requirements.

First, the computerized voting system would have to print a "voter-verified paper ballot" (sometimes called a "voter-verified paper audit trail" or VVPAT) for each voter to verify before leaving the booth. This is a printout of the voter's ballot with his or her votes, and the voter checks it for accuracy. If it is correct, it goes into a locked ballot box. The law would have to recognize this voter-verified printout as the legal ballot.

When the voter verifies that his or her printout -- the permanent, unalterable paper ballot -- is correct, this restores public oversight of ballot recording. (The ballot is supposed to be recorded inside computer memory also, but anything in computer memory can be lost or changed. Computers used in elections have lost hundreds of ballots, and voters have actually seen their votes switched to other candidates on the computer screen many times.)

Second, after the election is over and the electronic voting system produces its final tallies, the Board of Elections must conduct a full count of all voter-verified paper ballots in full public view. This is the second half of restoring public oversight -- the audit that enables people to verify that the computer's vote tallies are correct because they are the same as tallies of the voter-verified paper ballots.

What if the audit shows a difference between computer and paper ballot tallies? Then a "reconciliation" must be done. That means an investigation to show why there are differences -- mistakes and/or fraud by humans and/or computers.

The comparison of computer and paper ballot tallies (and reconciliation if needed) must show that each computer was 100% accurate. This is because, as a Yale study recently showed, if the election was run with software that causes only a single vote per machine to be switched from one candidate to another, many election outcomes can be changed.

To summarize: voter-verified paper ballots alone cannot protect election integrity. These ballots are only a tool for conducting an audit. Unless a complete, independent audit is done (count of votes on the paper ballot printouts, and reconciliation of the computer and paper ballot tallies if needed), election results should be considered suspect due to secrecy of procedures. Unless the audit shows that the computer was 100% accurate, election results should be considered suspect due to inaccuracy.

This is simple and straight-forward. Every business conducts routine, continuous audits and reconciliations. What's the problem?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New Hampshire Primary Concerns '08
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2008, 03:24:26 pm »
The problem is political

Even gas pumps print paper receipts! Yet, most DREs in use today cannot print a paper ballot while the voter is still in the voting booth to verify it. Our federal government has refused to require that computers used in elections be verifiable, in spite of years of warnings about the limitations of computers. Some state and local governments have required verifiability, but none have required routine verification.

Several vendors of DREs now offer systems that make voter-verifiable printouts, and time will tell whether these printouts are ever used to perform audits. Some vendors still say that their systems can make printouts after the election is over. At that time, their systems can print complete marked ballots that have been stored in the computer's memory, as well as a log report of the day's events (called an audit trail).

But something that's printed after the election is over can't provide proof of accuracy -- because the voter is no longer present to confirm that the printout of his or her ballot is correct. Unless voting system programmers are really incompetent, all end-of-day printouts will agree with the system's final vote tallies--whether those tallies are correct or wrong. (This is because all end-of-day printouts would be created from the same electronic data in the computer's memory. That data can be correct or wrong.)

Electronic voting systems that can't print a voter-verifiable paper ballot can't be audited -- and should not be used.

It is strange, but at this time, no Board of Elections or legislature intends to require that computers used in elections be used according to professional standards! No law requires that routine, independent audits of any computerized election be performed! Legislation that requires VVPAT requires only surprise random counts of the votes on VVPAT for a small percentage of voting precincts. That is not an audit. Ask yourself, would you be happy with a bank or brokerage company that audits 2 percent of its records? Why are our elections less important than our money? Why should Boards of Election be held to such a low standard? Would you trust a bank that never sent out statements, and advised you "The fact that our ATMs print receipts proves that we have everything under control and you can trust us, but you don't get to keep the receipt, and we will keep it for you, and you don't get to look at any of our records"?

In many states, full recounts are triggered only by a "close election." The concept of a "close election" is related to paper ballot or mechanical "lever" voting systems where fraud requires a lot of work by a large number of people in a large number of polling places or the central count location. With computerized fraud, one person can falsify the results of every machine in a matter of seconds and provide any margin of victory he or she wishes.

Courts have repeatedly looked at small errors in election tallies, such as a few hundred or thousand ballots lost or switched to the wrong candidate, and said that these irregularities don't make any difference because "the election outcome would not be changed" by those ballots. Yet the Yale study showed that if an election is run with software that switches only a single vote per machine from one candidate to another, many election outcomes can be changed without having a close election.

What is democracy? What is tyranny?

Abraham Lincoln said democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

History teaches us that whoever conducts an election and counts the votes can also control the outcome. Avoiding fraud requires an openly-observed process. If all parties participate and observe, we have the greatest possibility that our election outcomes will express the will of the people.

Our November election is suspect precisely because 25-30 percent of the voters used unverifiable electronic systems, and because many states and counties prevented citizens from observing the counting of ballots, handling of tally sheets, etc. Every American is being forced to "trust" that unobserved and invisible procedures -- electronic and otherwise -- were accurate.

Widespread charges of fraud are still circulating on the internet. Are the charges "bogus?" Are the people behind these charges "conspiracy theorists?"

In fact such suspicions are reasonable, given the intentional use of unverifiable computerized election systems -- even after the problems with such systems were publicized. The suspicions are realistic, given the widespread secrecy surrounding election operations in many counties and states. Secrecy suggests that something is being hidden. In many counties, tally sheets were not required to be posted in the precinct at the close of voting, ballots and precinct tally sheets were not guarded under multipartisan observation after the close of the election day, and counties have refused to comply with FOIL requests in an open and forthcoming manner.

When institutions hide what they do, indeed often fraud, stealing, etc. is taking place. Public servants should not only be honest, they must avoid the appearance of dishonesty. This idea is not new.

There is no evidence to support or refute charges of fraud, or resolve current suspicions about the November election. This weakens our democracy, and undermines the legitimacy of the election and the government. A democratic government has only as much legitimacy as the open observation and verifiability of its elections.

Elections are not a court of law where a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Elections deal with a broader issue, the legitimacy and credibility of representative democratic government. Secrecy in the procedures of elections, especially vote counting, is a constant when a system of tyranny poses as democracy by holding sham elections.

Election directors and Secretaries of State have responded to warnings about unverifiable computerized voting by saying "I will comply with legal requirements." This reduces a democracy argument (democracy requires observation and verification of elections) to a legal argument (the law doesn't require observation and verification).

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, said (in 1682) that if the people are good, the government will be good. If the people are bad, no form of government will save them from their own evil. He meant that if those in power make laws that are just (tend toward equal opportunity, equal protection, and due process; allow observation and participation in governmental procedures and decisions), the people will thrive. If those in power make laws that are unjust, they can use the same governmental structures and rituals, such as elections, to support tyranny.


Josef Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes!"
Anastasio Samoza: "You won the vote, but I won the count."
Boss Tweed: "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?"

Conclusions

1. We don't need computerized voting! Supporters of computerized voting claim that voters with disabilities or non-English languages need computerized voting. This is false. Certified computerized ballot-marking machines with assistive attachments can enable voters with disabilities or non-English languages to mark and verify paper ballots. All ballots, including absentee and provisional ballots, can be the same, thus simplifying the counting procedures. Counting can be done by hand or optical scanners. (When votes are counted by optical scanners, a manual audit must be done to confirm accuracy -- optical scanners are computers too, and are subject to error and fraud that can be detected only by hand-counts.) (info about voters with disabilities, chart of accessible and verifiable voting technology from VerifiedVoting.org).

2. If we are forced to use computers to record and count our votes, these computers should give us at least the same level of security (verified accuracy) and reliable ease-of-use that we get from computerized cash registers in our local supermarket. This means that Boards of Elections must perform the appropriate audits before multipartisan observers. Also, it means that if the computers fail, voters and pollworkers should not be blamed. In the professional world, computer systems to be used by nontechnical people are designed to prevent and handle all problems that could occur. We now have years of experience with the failures of computerized voting systems, and these failures should not continue to be excused as "glitches." Instead, Board of Elections must be held responsible for conducting elections with equipment that is unreliable and unsuitable. If an election worker "lost" hundreds of ballots, they would be held responsible. If an Election Director persists in using computer equipment that does the same thing, the Election Director should be held responsible.

3. Computer accuracy is not "free" -- it is achieved by continuous audits, reconciliations, and correction of errors. If this work is not done, the computer's results should be assumed to be inaccurate. Computers only give us speed of processing, audits give us accuracy.

4. It is simpler, more accurate, and less costly to conduct an election using hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots than to use a computer system and then have to audit the computer. Everyone understands the use of paper, but only a few people understand the use of computers and how to audit them.

5. Democracy is not "free" and no one will serve it to us on a silver platter. There is no "right" to election integrity, it is a result of citizen participation. If we are serious about our democracy, we must do much more than simply vote. We must participate in running and observing our own elections by working at the polls, and also observe every aspect of the preparation and conduct of our elections.

6. The technology we use for voting should not arouse the massive outcry, controversy, and lack of voter confidence that unverifiable electronic voting systems have generated. To ensure confidence in our elections we should not use unverifiable computers. Instead, simple paper ballots should be used.

Avoid Computers in Elections - Better ways to vote

Let's get rid of computers in elections. They prevent people from observing procedures and verifying outcomes. Boards of Election do not have the resources and expertise to manage them securely.

We don't need computers to run elections, we need people -- not just to vote, but to do the work and observe -- everything from registering voters and to the final certification of winners.

Paper Ballots. Studies show that elections conducted with hand-marked hand-counted paper ballots are the most accurate. National and provincial elections in Canada use hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots, and Canadians expect (and get) precise counts of voters, votes, and ballots with no discrepancies.

Optical Scanners. If Americans find hand-counting too difficult or burdensome, optical scanners can be used (along with proper manual recounts to detect errors in the optical scanner programming). Optical scanners in the polling place ("precinct-count optical scanners") can check paper ballots for correct marking. If a ballot is marked correctly, the optical scanner can count the votes and then drop the ballot into a sealed ballot box.

Proper security at the end of the election day means that a tally sheet printout from the optical scanner must be signed by the poll workers and posted publicly. Also each poll worker and observer must receive a duplicate signed printout. For each optical scanner, all ballots and another signed tally sheet printout must be stored together in a sealed bag so that recounts can be done scanner by scanner. The sealed bag of ballots and other records must be observed (guarded) at all times until the election is certified. The contents of each bag should not be mixed with the contents of any other bag.

Accessibility. Federal law now requires one accessible device per polling place so that voters with disabilities can enjoy a private and independent voting experience. An accessible computerized ballot-marking machine (the Automark) can enable such voters to mark their paper ballots. Accessible computerized ballot-printing machines are also available (Populex).

Mechanical Lever Machines are old and many have not been maintained well. If they are repaired, they can continue to serve most voters. Voters with disabilities who cannot use the lever machines would have to use an accessible ballot-marking or ballot-printing device, such as the Automark or Populex.

Punch Card Ballots have been discredited in the media, but when the ballot is designed clearly (as it should be) and when the mechanisms for holding and punching the card are working properly (as they should be), punch cards have one big advantage over computerized voting -- a human being can examine the punch card and determine the intent of the voter.

Computerized voting systems require more complicated procedures to ensure integrity. To restore public oversight of the election, and protect election integrity, we must require computerized voting machines to print voter-verified paper ballots, AND end-of-day tally sheet printouts must be posted publicly and provided to election observers (the same as with optical scanners), AND the voter-verified paper ballots must be guarded and observed at all times once cast, and stored in a separate sealed bag for each computer (the same as with optical scanners), AND the Board of Elections must conduct a full recount of all ballots in full public view, AND the recount must show that each computer was 100% accurate.

Elections using computerized voting machines must be 100% accurate because if the master copy of the original software causes only a single vote per machine to be changed, many election outcomes can be changed.

If the recount of voter-verified paper ballots differs from the computer tally, a "reconciliation" must be done (an investigation to show why there are differences -- mistakes and/or fraud by humans and/or computers, followed by correction of all errors).

Take action now!

1. Several web sites have lists of what to do.
BlackBoxVoting.org
votersunite.org

2. Deliver the report "Myth Breakers: Facts about Electronic Elections" to your local election officials and legislators.

3. Join your local political club or good government organization. As a member, inform them about this issue and the need for action. Important documents are available, as well as a summary of the problems with evoting.

4. New Yorkers, please go to our New York page and take action.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New Hampshire Primary Concerns '08
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2008, 03:27:16 pm »
Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - 5:17 pm:             
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71236.html

They program every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. But did state officials in five New England states ever do a criminal background check on this company's executives? Do the laws of these five states even ALLOW them to hire convicted criminals for services paid for by the state? What about over 500 local towns and municipalities?

According to my sources, LHS Marketing and Sales Director Ken Hajjar grew up with owner John Silvestro in Lawrence, Massachusetts. They both moved to Londonderry, New Hampshire, where Ken Hajjar was arrested, indicted, and pleaded guilty to "sale / CND" and sentenced to 12 months in the Rockingham County Correctional facility, and fined $2000. As things go for the politically connected, he was then given a deferred sentence and $1000 of his fine was suspended.

 

Hajjar doesn't limit his involvement in the voting machine business to sales. According to an interview conducted by Dori Smith, as reported here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5320, Hajjar totes memory cards around in the trunk of his car and defends the boggling concept of swapping out memory cards during the middle of elections.

Hold onto your hats, there's more. Start with this YouTube video, if you haven't already seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

Don't miss this BradBlog story:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5320
quote:

(excerpt)
[from Dori Smith & Bradblog] "Other LHS staff members we spoke with, including Mike Carlson and Tom Burge, provided similar comments. They said they would open machines up during an election and swap memory cards as needed. This is illegal under Connecticut law and Deputy Secretary Mara told us she has since informed LHS that such actions were in violation of Connecticut election laws.

"In 2006, as Hajjar argued in favor of their policy to change cards during elections, I asked him about about the laws which govern chain of custody issues. His response: "I mean, I don't pay attention to every little law. It's just, it's up to the Registrars. All we are is a support organization on Election Day".

He said he had three memory cards in the trunk of his car and, in the event they had to be used, the chain of custody issues wouldn't matter since, "once you run the [pre-election] test deck through, you're golden"."


Black Box Voting has sent out 10 freedom of information requests, called "right to know requests" in New Hampshire, and public records requests elsewhere.

Hajjar's conviction was in 1987, but we have asked also for complaints filed on a threat allegedly made in recent years to a New Hampshire woman, and any other reports for Hajjar or LHS owner John Silvestro.

Until recently, LHS employees were listed on the company Web site. Now the pages identifying who programs New England voting machines have been taken down.

We want to know.

We want to know exactly what the secretaries of state/commonwealth know about LHS Associates.

Did they know of Hajjar's criminal background? If so, why's he toting voting machine cards around in the trunk of his car in case they are "needed" in live elections, and if not, why not?

Link to Kenneth Hajjar criminal record:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/LHS/hajjar.png

VOTING MACHINES - SKILLFULLY MANIPULATED - LEAVE NO EVIDENCE

The famous "Hursti Hack" of the memory card in the voting system version used in New Hampshire preloaded the card with minus and plus votes, passed the "zero test" at the beginning of the day, and after 6 no and 2 yes votes were fed through it, pronounced election totals of 7 yes and 1 no. Yes, these are the cards Hajjar totes in trunk.

Good news for the citizens of Connecticut. According to Brad Friedman, Hajjar was booted out of the state after he posted "You're full of shit" on BradBlog, a liberal political site that does kick-ass voting machine stories.

Whether Hajjar works in Connecticut or not, he works at LHS, and it is inside the Methuen, Massachusetts-based factory that the memory cards are programmed for Connecticut and the rest of New England.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline dogmadestroyer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,830
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2008, 04:06:19 pm »
story on what?

Sorry, on that Albert Howard guy and his vision of an angel.
“The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.”

-Robert Anton Wilson

FearMonger 888: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRu80jgKzk

Offline dogmadestroyer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,830
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2008, 04:08:42 pm »
That was before the ABC debate w/Ron Paul present.
It was on his site actually and from ABC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7qmecdOq-Q

(Time limit on my edit passed... I'm not sure how when its only 2 min later.)
“The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.”

-Robert Anton Wilson

FearMonger 888: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRu80jgKzk

Offline clint

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2008, 04:10:43 pm »
But can't they just rig a recount and come up with the same number of votes as original? Would there be a team  independent officials to overview the recount?
Ive had enough of reading things by neurotic,
psychotic, pigheaded politicians, all I want is the truth, just gimme some truth.

(John Lennon)

Offline ekt8750

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
  • Made In China
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2008, 04:13:51 pm »
But can't they just rig a recount and come up with the same number of votes as original? Would there be a team  independent officials to overview the recount?

Yeah it's like having a fox guard a chicken coop against other foxes.
The mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's open. - Anthony J. DeAngelo

Offline jflack

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,040
    • Survival Communication Equipment
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2008, 04:14:09 pm »
I don't know if these online petitions ever work or are legit but here you go.

Ron Paul recount petition

http://www.gopetition.com/online/16251.html

Offline Blam

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2008, 04:14:31 pm »
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS06/80110061

Ann Arbor man plans recount of N.H. Republican primary
January 10, 2008
BY TINA LAM
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Albert Howard, would-be presidential contender from Ann Arbor, said today he has discussed a recount of the Republican vote in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire with the secretary of state’s office, and plans to fly to New Hampshire by the end of the day Friday to pay the required fee and start the recount.
Howard, one of 42 so-called minor candidates in the primary, received 44 votes in the primary, according to the official tally. But at one point during the night’s vote counting, Howard said his tally was over 170 votes, making him wonder what happened.
Howard said today that he discussed his recount request with William Gardner, the secretary of state. Howard must pay a $2,000 fee to start the recount process, but the costs could be much higher, he said. He must pay all the associated costs, which includes police who would go with the ballot counters to each county. “I’ve got backers who will pay the costs,” Howard said.
Gardner was not immediately available today. A secretary said Howard must pay the fee and make his formal request tomorrow by 5 p.m. to trigger the recount. The recount would be of every candidate on the Republican ballot, not just the votes cast for Howard, she said.
Howard, a chauffeur for Checker Sedan and father of eight, paid $1,000 to be on the New Hampshire ballot as a Republican presidential candidate. He is not on the ballot in any other states, most of which, like Michigan, require petitions signed by several thousand voters to get a candidate’s name on the ballot.


I assume he's taking donations for this on his website?

Ron Paul can't do everything. If this guy is standing up to fight this corrupt system, where is the problem?

Offline otero1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,362
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2008, 04:18:47 pm »
I don't know if these online petitions ever work or are legit but here you go.

Ron Paul recount petition

http://www.gopetition.com/online/16251.html

Signed it.

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2008, 04:24:23 pm »
absolutely. grannywarrior is also taking contributions on her website www.grannywarrior.com  she has raised almost 10,000 dollars so far
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

Offline OEJ

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2008, 04:26:01 pm »
Wow, it almost seems like this guy is there to make sure the votes get counted properly.

Offline Turbo

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2008, 04:31:37 pm »
Wow, it almost seems like this guy is there to make sure the votes get counted properly.

Might be a good idea, putting a dummy candidate in each state and ask for a recount under his name   ;D

Offline pacemaker

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2008, 05:11:12 pm »
How does the recount work? Do they do it only by hand or will they just be able to cheat easy again?

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2008, 05:14:12 pm »
paper ballots are counted by hand.whats needed is honest observers.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

Offline Weston White

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: Boston Globe website AP poll count article/page
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2008, 05:42:31 pm »
the url was indeed pulled.  After much searching, I found it again:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/nh/nh_primary_gop_results_by_town/


but get this: at the bottom is the following:

Last updated: 05:13 PM
NOTE: Due to a formatting error, some of the columns of this chart appeared mislabeled in some users' browsers Wednesday morning. They are now correctly labeled. The data appearing on the map was not affected.


So it was our evil browsers, not our benevolent voteriggers that made the changes.  ::)


Damn they do not even have half believable excuses, these people or frigging morons! I have to say this really pisses me off, really.

aura

  • Guest
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2008, 06:12:26 pm »
Presidential contender Albert Howard and his lovely wife sing God's praises here.

http://www.dailymotion.com/FatAlbert369/video/x26bne_psalm-91_music?from=rss

Alleluia!               Alleluia!                 Alleluia!              Alleluia!                 Alleluia!             Alleluia!

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2008, 06:18:32 pm »
May God bless the man for what he's doing.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

Offline Harpakhrad11

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
    • From Pictures to Portraits
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2008, 06:20:29 pm »
Well if Paul does not do it, Howard will.

Offline Megaman

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2008, 06:30:52 pm »
Albert Howard has found a new fan !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline gEEk squad

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,000
  • You're World Delivered... to the NSA
Re: New Hampshire Primary Concerns '08
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2008, 06:32:42 pm »
Directory of LHS Associates Employees still on google cache:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:lRwPfh5QNGYJ:www.lhsassociates.com/employeedirectory.htm

LHS Associates, Inc. 13 Branch Street Methuen, MA 01844

Toll Free: 888-547-8683 Fax: 978-687-3670
President John Silvestro Ext. 114 Johns@lhsassociates.com

Vice President Gerry Bergeron Ext. 107 Gerryb@lhsassociates.com

Administrative Assistant Peaches Wilcox Ext. 102 Peach@lhsassociates.com

Director of Sales & Marketing Ken Hajjar Ext. 108 Kenh@lhsassociates.com

General Manager Jeff Silvestro Ext. 115 Jeffs@lhsassociates.com

Election Services Manager Sue Reynolds Ext. 104 Suer@lhsassociates.com

Field Operations Manager Tina Bryson Ext. 105 Tinab@lhsasociates.com

Municipal Division Manager Tom Burge Ext. 110 Tomb@lhsassociates.com

IT & Warehouse Manager John Levicki Ext. 109 Johnl@lhsassociates.com

Election Services Rep. Kristen Colon Ext. 116 Krisc@lhsassociates.com

Election Services Rep. Brenda Merritt Ext. 111 BCM@lhsassociates.com

Election Services Rep.Patricia Buttersworth Ext. 119 Patb@lhsassociates.com

Quality Control Rep. Nancy Kennedy Ext. 103 Nancyk@lhsassociates.com

Field Technician Mike Carlson Ext. 118 Mikec@lhsassociates.com

Field Technician Roderick Amidon Ext. 120 Rodericka@lhsassociates.com

Field Technician Gyula Veres Ext. 106 Gyulav@lhsassociates.com

Offline bcp

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Reformed Neocon, thanks Alex.
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2008, 06:36:21 pm »
keep the pressure up!
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
-Patrick Henry

independentWV

  • Guest
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2008, 06:40:15 pm »
We should all send Albert Howard a thankful email for being stepping forward in this struggle for liberty and freedom.  

aura

  • Guest
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2008, 06:55:26 pm »
We should all send Albert Howard a thankful email for being stepping forward in this struggle for liberty and freedom.  

The guy's an inspiration. And he and his wife are super talented. They've got a new fan - me!

I can understand why the Paul campaign couldn't get it together in time to order a recount, with the smear they're having to deal with right now and all. I guess that was all part of the 'plan'. But the Lord is looking out for Dr. Paul and sent Howard to help out. And the kicker is that an angel told Howard Hillary would lose. That alone makes my day.

Offline industria

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,351
    • industria
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #65 on: January 10, 2008, 06:58:21 pm »

Albert Howard For U.S. President 2008
http://alberthoward.org/default.aspx

October 23, 2007: Albert Howard interviews Ron Paul in Concord, New Hampshire.

AlbertHoward.Org Interviews Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJThkuaNBw


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - MLK

industria jewelry
on Etsy
on Trunkt

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2008, 07:12:47 pm »
We definately owe this man a debt of gratitude for getting the ball rolling.now
it's up to us.if you haven't yet go to www.ronpaulwarroom.com and contribute
to the recount.you can also go to www.grannywarrior.com.they've raised over
12,000 dollars so far .
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

Offline jamba

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2008, 07:37:36 pm »
Did you guys see this? Kucinich is also asking for the recount! ;D
(Maybe this is why RP has been quiet on this? Perhaps he knew it would be taken care of? Just throwing that out there.)
Anyway, I really like it that there are now requests from both parties.

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=1038#more-1038

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
KUCINICH ASKS FOR RECOUNT! Bradblog UPDATE!
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2008, 07:40:25 pm »
i just read this on ronpaulwarroom.dennis kucinich has asked for a recount in NH!!!! go to www.businesswire.com and scroll down the page for the original story. that makes two candidates asking for a recount.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

orangeblue

  • Guest
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2008, 07:40:56 pm »
I’ll donate $100 if I get an autographed picture of the monkey.  :)

I’ll donate $1000 if Alex posts the video of himself watching the Grannywarrior motorhome drive back and forth past his office today with the monkey hanging off the back!  :D

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2008, 07:43:44 pm »
yes,i just posted it on the main page.looks like we got a recount !!!!!
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

Offline Pupil

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
    • Galactic Defender Zik!
Re: KUCINICH ASKS FOR RECOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2008, 07:55:04 pm »

Offline integam

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Vote Free or Live in Submission
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #72 on: January 10, 2008, 08:06:52 pm »
I just donated to the grannywarrior recount drive, but I'm a bit confused on the deadline.  I read that the deadline is this Friday - 1/11, but the grannywarrior site says the deadline is 1/18.  Anybody know for sure?
Vote Free or Live in Submission

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: RECOUNT ANNOUNCED!!!!!!!
« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2008, 08:33:51 pm »
the dead line to ask for a recount is tomorrow.Albert Howard has flown to NH to pay to pay the $2000
to start the process.we then have a few days to get the rest of the money.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
Re: KUCINICH ASKS FOR RECOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2008, 09:37:24 pm »
Good News indeed! It's so obvious this election was a fraud...
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline Melody

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • End Blind Patriotism
    • Revolutionary Girl
Re: KUCINICH ASKS FOR RECOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2008, 09:41:43 pm »
WOOOO!! Count em up!!

Of course, it's a matter of time before CNN does a story on how Kucinic thinks aliens rigged it... :-\
I am a Revolutionary Girl!

I would submit, Your Honor, that if someone is doing something demonstrably asinine, and I ask them to stop it, please, and they say, "Make us," they've entered a binding oral contract whereby I am permitted, even obligated, to try to make them.

Offline watchman07

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: KUCINICH ASKS FOR RECOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2008, 09:42:06 pm »
yes we now have two candidates asking for a recount.go to www.ronpaulwarroom.com and contribute to the recall fund.almost 13,000 dollars
collected so far.still got some work to do.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for those who didn't.

AmericasPatriot

  • Guest
Why Ron Paul Himself Is Not Demanding A Recount
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2008, 09:51:36 pm »
I suspect Ron Paul is privately asking other declared candidates like Albert Howard and Dennis Kucinich, who have no chance of making it in the general election, to file for a recount in New Hampshire. 

Dr. Paul is doing this so he doesn't look like Al Gore in 2000 and get harassed in a smear campaign that would be similar to the "Sore/Loserman" crap during the Florida recount.

That's my best guess of why the congressman isn't publicly demanding a recount.

Offline websuspect

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
Re: Why Ron Paul Himself Is Not Demanding A Recount
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2008, 09:55:31 pm »
I dont know publicly he could say Diebold higher convicted CIA felons and drug smugglers and the elections are rigged.  It would be a defeating blow for the New World Order to publically point fingers at the worlds largest "free democracy".  Than again just another reason for the CIA to blow his brains out.  personally I don't care.  I hate the CIA and the New World Order and so do millions of Americans.

They can kill one or two of us but they cant kill 10-80 million of us who hate em.

Offline Melody

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • End Blind Patriotism
    • Revolutionary Girl
Re: KUCINICH ASKS FOR RECOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2008, 10:07:04 pm »
Quote
Vote Paul/Kucinich 2008!

 :D Yuppie heads would explode all over the country!
I am a Revolutionary Girl!

I would submit, Your Honor, that if someone is doing something demonstrably asinine, and I ask them to stop it, please, and they say, "Make us," they've entered a binding oral contract whereby I am permitted, even obligated, to try to make them.