At the completion of the New Hampshire primaries, certain elements are are claiming an “astonishing” discrepancy between the results tallied by hand and those tallied by Diebold machines. Naturally reddit jumped on the bandwagon as fast as possible. Here are the results as of 96% precincts reporting (NB: others include Biden, Gravel and Dodd, CNN didn’t provide info for the rest of the field when I collated the data. The rest accounted for about 1% of the vote):
| Hand | Diebold | Difference | |
| Clinton | 35.17% | 40.71% | 5.54% |
| Obama | 39.20% | 36.24% | -2.96% |
| Edwards | 17.71% | 16.97% | -0.74% |
| Richardson | 5.64% | 4.40% | -1.24% |
| Kucinich | 1.89% | 1.25% | -0.64% |
| Others | 0.49% | 0.44% | -0.05% |
At first glance, the results seem to backup the conspiracy theorists. Is it possible that Clinton’s vote could be so much greater in the Diebold Districts and every other candidate slightly less without foul play? Has Diebold rigged the count in Hillary’s favor? Or is there something else at play?
Whilst Hand Districts are more numerous than Diebold Districts, they tend to be in less populous areas and far fewer votes are hand-counted than tallied by machine. Note that this table currently excludes the 9 Hand Districts and 2 Diebold Districts that have yet to report results.
| # of Districts | Votes Cast | Votes/Districts | |
| Diebold | 95 | 222,464 | 2341.73 |
| Hand | 131 | 56,812 | 433.68 |
The discrepency may just be a matter of demographics: urban voters may like Hillary more than rural voters. So what happens when we looks at similarly sized districts? Here are the results in districts where between 900 and 1200 votes were cast.
| Hand | Diebold | Difference | |
| Clinton | 35.90% | 38.09% | 2.19% |
| Obama | 38.00% | 37.47% | -0.53% |
| Votes Cast in Precinct | |||
| Under 1000 | 1000-2000 | Over 2000 | |
| Clinton | 36.26% | 39.20% | 41.25% |
| Obama | 38.02% | 36.84% | 36.29% |
| Difference | -1.76% | 2.36% | 4.96% |
There are so many variables in an election result that to put Hillary’s win down to jiggery-pokery without any real evidence is over the top. Demographics of the turnout and McCain siphoning Independents away from Obama at the last minute are infinitely more likely to have affected the than Diebold skullduggery.
For democracy to work, the system must be transparent and maintain the confidence of its participants. Proprietary voting machines fail both these tests. American, as far as I know, are still capable of counting, so should return exclusively to the paper ballot.
Tags: barack, clinton, edwards, election, hillary, new hampshire, obama, president, primary, statistic
Drunkard's Lamppost 
January 9, 2008 at 12:23 pm |
good analysis. However, it looks like in NH it’s the opposite than in Iowa: didn’t Obama do A LOT better than Hillary in the big towns in Iowa, whereas she was stronger in the small towns?
January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
[…] done much better in towns with Diebold voting machines than in other towns, in New Hampshire. Drunkard’s Lamppost looks closer at the numbers and suggests that this is a correlation without causation: larger towns […]
January 9, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
Wow, I sure hope this isn’t true. I have been hoping that this year’s election would go better than 2004 seemed to, but it seems we’re having the same problems. The US of A really needs a ton of voter reform it seems.
In addition, I wonder how many votes are incorrectly cast just through voter confusion. Maybe it is time for voice recognition through video recording to ensure accurate results.
January 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm |
Thank you for having a thorough analysis that is actually thought out. Even if I am peeved Ron Paul didn’t do better.
January 9, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
The sample size for these charts would be helpful, especially the last comparing districts of different sizes. Is that last chart showing only Diebold results? If not, then a chart comparing results from different district sizes that were all counted on Diebolds would be informative for showing the Obama-skew in smaller districts.
January 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
I’d love to know where to get raw data like this. Where does one get raw election data from?
January 9, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
[…] more about “New Hampshire Perversion” here and here and here and here and here and […]
January 9, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
There is only ONE reason why you would not want a paper trail: You rigged the election. I can’t think of another reason.
January 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
I’ve been looking all over the web for over an hour now. Where did you obtain the actual numbers?
January 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
I’d like to hear how the exit polls, the standard measure worldwide for fairness, were also so wrong.
Also, “conspiracy theorists” is an inflammatory term. It isn’t like fixing an election has never happened before.
January 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
I’m not sure “infinitely more likely” is a technical term.
In any case, Americans sadly have good reason to be suspicious, especially of Diebold, which has previously been shown to be involved in a criminal conspiracy to rig elections.
January 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
Correlation is more likely? The correlation is there, plain and simple. But as the old saying goes; it does not equal causation.
January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
[…] Instapundit, here’s a closer look at the Diebold conspiracy claims, which concludes: There are so many variables in an election […]
January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
You mention “proprietary voting machines”, referring to the Diebold ones, yet the source material for these articles refers to the Diebold machines as “optical scan”.
I repeat, the “suspect” machines are optical scan systems that happen to be manufactured by Diebold. There’s already a paper trail.
January 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
Is it not interesting though, that the public distrusts our system so much, that we jump to this conclusion so easily?
January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
I don’t understand why people don’t realize fraud can be committed with paper ballots just as easily. We all act like voter fraud just came about with the invention of electricity! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall
Fraudulent paper ballots can be inserted into the ballot box before or after the voting. The ballot box can be switched with one containing fraudulent paper votes. The people counting could all be miscounting for one candidate. Voters can discretely be dropping multiple votes at a time. Voters can register multiple times and thus vote multiple times. Etc etc etc.
Processes can be put in place to minimize fraud, but fraud can never be eliminated. Ultimately, in the future, I am sure that electronic voting will prove to be more secure than paper voting. I am sure it will be done over the internet, and use far more secure methods of performing transactions than can ever be acomplished with paper.
January 9, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
Your statement about rural communities doesn’t match what is known about them.
Heavily rural residents are more likely to vote for Edwards and less likely to vote for an african american.
January 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
[…] Blogosphere is raging this morning with claims of Diebold machine rigging and other […]
January 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm |
Do Not Fear the Tears
Obamaniacs, lament ye not New Hampshire! Whilst everyone is wondering whether a crocodile was involved in Hillary’s "Muskie Moment," whether the Clinton’s rigged it, and what it all means going forward, listen up here for a little rea…
January 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
[…] Drunkard’s Lamppost posts a logical counter to the conspiracies . . . obviously he’s in on it. […]
January 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
Put’s a new spin on “Machine” politics, doesn’t it?
January 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
[…] voting machines: Picking our leaders, so we don’t have to. 9 01 2008 Did Diebold rig New Hampshire? Do NH Primary Statistics Show Election Fraud?: Clinton Received a 4.5% Boost In […]
January 9, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
It’s an interesting result, but why not do a statistical test to validate one claim or the other. There is a whole set of nice machinery that has been developed to answer the questions you are asking. You can measure the probability of seeing the events you described instead of just eyeballing which people are notoriously bad at. Now that would be convincing.
January 9, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
This is a very interresting article. I’m not sure where people get this type of data, but if it is true data, hillary clinton is deffinently rigging the race to presidency for 2008.
January 9, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
That’s funny how this artical’s title is “Did Diebold rig New Hampshire?” Then this artical goes on to say that Hilary’s win is understandable. Another misleading title. Can’t trust mainstream news nor the internet.
January 9, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
thank you. i started to try to put together precisely these numbers last night, but gave up.
unfortunately, it will take more than these suggestive numbers to prove any wrong-doing – and without proof, this will have little effect on the campaign. as you said though – we don’t know what happened and there are so many variables at work here.
thank you again.
January 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
This information is meaningless without specific information.
January 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
The problem with hand counting is not so much honest human error as it is in dishonest counting to achieve a desired result, skewing the process. We saw this occur in the very close Washington State Governor election, where after the third hand recount (at taxpayers expense) the Democrat controlled King County (Seattle) elections office (which has the supermajority of electoral votes) managed to “scrounge up” enough votes to finally put Christine Gregoire (D) over the top. It was so bad in fact, that there were reports of the staff “finding” uncounted ballots under desks and much speculation of how many Dino Rossi (R) ballots ended up at the bottom of Lake Union. Let’s just say that the dead were restless those nights, as they were out casting votes for dear Christine. Talk about lost faith in the process and lack of transparency, not to mention blatant skullduggery and over the top jiggery-pokery at work, it feels pretty much pointless to vote in the Peoples Republic of Washington anymore, I pretty much do it just to be an annoyance to the Democrat political and also because I’m probably a sadomasochist. At least we manage to get some tax reducing Initiatives passed and then the idiots in Olympia (State Capitol) all get in a tizzy and then do everything they can to either have them removed as being “unconstitutional” or find sneaky ways to get around them. They’ve already tried to have the Initiative process removed entirely, and it greatly pains me to see my tax dollars going for paid political advertisements against the Initiatives I support…truly pathetic.
Disgruntled and Disenfranchised Washington voter (who is still among the living)
January 9, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
[…] honestly not sure. I think you can discount voter fraud. I don’t trust Diebold at all, but the numbers don’t really substantiate a vote-rigging theory. It’s probably a combination of a bunch of factors, but most likely it’s just inertia. […]
January 9, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
But notice your 900-1200 district sample. While the difference IS smaller whats important is in your sample Obama won in the hand count and lost in the Diebold count.
BTW there were similar difference in the hand versus diebold counts in the Republican race too, it was a much closer race in the hand counts.
January 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm |
Someone who knows what they are doing should hack diebold. If I had the money I would offer a cash prize incentive just to see wtf is going on here.
January 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
[…] how the New Hampshire polls could be so wrong. As ususal, conspiracy theories abound, amongst them speculation on the role Diebold’s voting machines played in the results. I’m not […]
January 9, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
[…] går bananas över uppgifter som pekar på stora skillnader i valresultat mellan de distrikt i New Hampshire som räknats för hand och de som räknats med maskin. […]
January 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm |
Diebold Srikes Again Or Is It Voter Fraud On The Part Of Democrats?!?
When will this insanity end? What this brainiac failed to do was include the Republicans in the data. Had they done that, there would be no discrepancies. From the post, an intelligent reader walks away thinking that the Democrats committed voter fr…
January 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm |
[…] choice. Democracy is clearly a flawed method of choosing a president, even if may be the best. Fraud is always possible; the media coverage is generally less than exemplary; many people seem to make up their minds on a […]
January 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm |
I find it interesting that only -clinton- received any favor in the machine counted votes.
January 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm |
I believe they did. It seems like with every news story you hear about their electronic voting systems the company is fighting like hard to keep from leaving a paper trail behind or paper evidence of what votes were really cast. I don’t and never will trust them.
January 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm |
This is ridiculous. Diebold, notoriously a conservative leaning election-stealer…is now working for the Clintons? Yawn. Sell me your UFO theory next, please.
January 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
[…] https://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/diebold-and-new-hampshire/ […]
January 9, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
All of the votes were cast on paper ballots. The machines used to count them were simply a convenience for the local precincts. Those paper ballots still can be counted to validate the technology used. I would feel so much more comfortable if this were always done, even several days later, just to make sure that there was no chicanery involved at the vendor who programs the memory cards in the counting machines – or elsewhere in the operations or handling of the technology used. The paper ballot is foolproof if properly accounted for.
January 9, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
Can we see some scatterplots of all precincts, to get a better handle on the underlying data? Maybe use one symbol for Diebold and another for hand counting. Means only tell us so much.
January 9, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
[…] It really is rather amazing that the polling in New Hampshire was so completely off the mark. Dunno if I’m buying what’s becoming the official explaination for the discrepancies (some folks have their own explaination, involving Diebold). […]
January 9, 2008 at 7:06 pm |
Man, I can’t wait for Diebold to get the Blackwater treatment.
January 9, 2008 at 7:09 pm |
It’s kind of scary to think that this is what we’ve come to. Rigged voting machines? You can’t make this stuff up….
January 9, 2008 at 7:32 pm |
I appreciate your sober analysis, though one must admit that Diebold (now Premier) does have a troubled past (and present: http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ ). Still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If only “confidence” in the system was a matter of voting transparency:
Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives
Findings JFK, Paragraph C.
“The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.”
Findings MLK, Paragraph E. 1.
“The Department of Justice failed to supervise adequately the Domestic Intelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the Domestic Intelligence Division’s COINTELPRO campaign against Dr. King, grossly abused and exceeded its legal authority and failed to consider the possibility that actions threatening bodily harm to Dr. King might be encouraged by the program.”
[ http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html ]
January 9, 2008 at 7:32 pm |
Veddy interesting…and I agree. The machines, they are no good
January 9, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
And Ron Paul folks SWEAR they voted for him too. I started out blaming Clinton, but the reality here is, we know who knows how to manipulate the machinery best of all! It’s time to join with DK “Edwardsland” and Ron Paul land and scream at the MSM and all the bigger blogs to get this into the MSM’s sites.
January 9, 2008 at 7:37 pm |
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Allegations_of_Voter_Fraud_in_NH
check this one out! (meant to post with other comment).
January 9, 2008 at 7:52 pm |
It’s worth noting for the conspiracy theorists that if we were to take out whatever bias is still left when looking at districts of comparable size (+2.19% for Clinton, -.53% for Obama) Clinton still would have won. Specifically, if we were to assume that this difference is the restult of machine error or tampering, and that it persisted throughout all sampling areas, we could subtract it out of the results and Clinton would still have 38.52% to Obama’s 36.77%.
I think any time you compare the results of different districts you have too many possible causes to conclude anything solid. The only way I would start to be really suspicious is if there was a significant difference between poll results and exit-polling numbers. And it would have to be significant enough to clearly exceed sampling error.
I still think Diebold machines are terrible. Paperless voting systems can be transparent and 100% accurate and we really should demand better.
January 9, 2008 at 8:25 pm |
Diebold and New Hampshire « Good wrapup of the situation
January 9, 2008 at 8:29 pm |
The loony left is always ranting about the differences in areas with Diebold machines. What they choose to overlook is:
1. Diebold machines are used in areas where the vote is anticipated to be the highest. (Speeds the process)
2. Caucasians vote at a much higher percentage than negroes.
(More votes, speed the process, use automated machines)
3. The education level in Caucasian districts is higher than in negro districts. (Education equates to easier to comprehend the mechanics of using Diebold machines)
4. Diebold machines if used in more negro districts would slow the voting process. The negroes would take longer to cast votes than Caucasians. (More baseless claims of the Diebold machines used to control the vote outcome)
5. Rural districts may have a higher level of negroes, the precincts would be more widely spread, less voters per district, cost of machines in rural districts based upon normal voting patterns becomes exorbitant.
6. Answering a poll question does not mean that a person WILL vote for a specific candidate, nor does it mean that the person answering the poll question will indeed vote. Many lefties will claim to have voted for obama to give the appearance of “being liberal”. (The entire purpose behind a secret ballot is to prevent coercion from outside sources. Remember that unions recently lost in their effort to remove secret balloting)
Regardless of how well the machines are disbursed there will always be whines of discrimination and fraud. Wanting a specific outcome does NOT mean that is the outcome that will occur.
January 9, 2008 at 8:36 pm |
Any plans to hand count Dibold votes?
January 9, 2008 at 8:46 pm |
It’s certainly possible that there’s nothing up… But it is suspicious regardless. Diebold machines shouldn’t be the standard, that is for sure.
January 9, 2008 at 8:51 pm |
Drunkard,
Not so fast. When the results of an election swing so wildly (6-11 point swing depending on the poll) from what every major poll predicted less than 24 hours earlier, the first question should *always* be an unbiased WHY?
Assuming the polls were wrong (as everyone in the MSM are doing) is equally as foolish as assuming they were right. The question asked shouldn’t be “Why were the polls wrong?” The question should be “Were the polls wrong OR were they right?”
January 9, 2008 at 8:53 pm |
Is there any formal auditing system in place? Are some machines hand checked and some hand counts checked by machine?
January 9, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
[…] not counted could be a plausible mistake – but 31 votes for one candidate? Here’s a link about the affect that Diebold could have had on the election. And this is anotehr story about the same thing. __________________ http://www.ronpaul2008.com […]
January 9, 2008 at 9:02 pm |
I really think this needs to be looked in to. These Diebold machines can be hacked.
I’m not saying that Hillary’s camp would have done that but her supporters might have without her knowing.
It would explain how the pollsters got it so wrong.
January 9, 2008 at 9:04 pm |
[…] was a statistically-significant discrepancy between precincts that hand-counted ballots and the Diebold-counted precincts– for Clinton […]
January 9, 2008 at 9:18 pm |
It was rigged.
Clinton did over 5% better in Diebold precincts than in hand counted precincts. And Obama did almost 3% worse in Diebold precincts… in the difference is the win for Clinton.
Please wake the f*#@ up!
So long as Clinton is down for bombing half the Middle East she will suffice as President and get the cushy Neocon Diebold treatment that you all complained about after the Gore debacle.
January 9, 2008 at 9:23 pm |
Don’t you all know red handed when you see it??
January 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm |
Clinton bought the votes!
It was a simple commercial transaction. She knew she was going to lose to Obama, saw the end of her career looming, and made a quick call to the CEO, who saw an opportunity to bump up profits for the quarter. “A 9% swing? No problem, Madam Senator… or should I say, Madam President?”
Means. Motive. Opportunity. All three were in place. The onus is on Obama, or any other candidate, to order a recount.
January 9, 2008 at 9:34 pm |
Has anyone else found it interesting that none of the Democrats in leadership positions, nor the DNC, has ever pushed for straightening out the voter fraud/black-box systems?
The #1 thing politicians are interested in is power. The way they get power is to get elected; the way they retain power is to get reelected.
It has appeared that it was the Dems who were being defrauded, which means that the Dem leadership should have been HOT to address it.
But they haven’t been.
I’ve wondered whether a back-room deal (and HRC is infamous for her back-room deals) was made whereby certain leadership Dems promised to thwart any real investigation into the voting fraud in exchange for being able to use the fraud for their own purposes.
I would love it if a reporter was to ask her why she never pushed for addressing the Diebold/black-box voting-fraud evidence, and did she know that Diebold was used in NH?
January 9, 2008 at 9:41 pm |
Why not see if any such discrepancies in the GOP tallies exist? Not dispositive perhaps but potentially suggestive.
January 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm |
Yes, but how do you know for SURE the vote was accurate? You DON’T and that is THE PROBLEM and will continue to be a PROBLEM until there is a paper ballot /receipt trail to back up the official results, and not only that, recounts will be followed through on, not STOPPED like in FLORIDA.
Sorry, Diebold cannot be trusted!
January 9, 2008 at 10:03 pm |
how come they were reporting running out of ballots, mid afternoon, before the rush late afternoon, when most voters actually vote?
Those ballots were filled out and dropped into the other batches.
January 9, 2008 at 10:20 pm |
So, the discrepancy just happens to favor the one candidate on the Democratic side, and the one candidate on the Republican side, who would be most sympathetic to Diebold’s neocon leaning philosophy?
January 9, 2008 at 11:53 pm |
I DID NOT rig this election. Ohio 2004, sure I did, everybody knows that. But NOT this one. Why would I want the Witch to be the Democrat nominee? I want Obama, ’cause he’s going to be easier to beat.
And why would I want that old geezer McCain to win? I wanted Mitt, a man who can sympathize with bigtime CEOs such as me.
So, I’m just sayin’ to all you conspiracy moonbats, look around somewhere else. What were all of Bill Gates’s minions doing last night? Is Linux really as “open” as you think it is? Where was Adm. Poindexter, eh?
Now get busy, and stop blaming me every time you lose.
January 10, 2008 at 1:30 am |
wow, Enigma, did you really say “negroes”?
January 10, 2008 at 2:19 am |
Yo, Mr DIEBOLD,
Anyone who conflates concern over vote rigging, something that has happened thousands of times in US politics, with “conspiracy theory” is a full out douche bag!
January 10, 2008 at 2:36 am |
It has been well and often reported that Republicans prefer Hillary because she actually is, from their view, easier to beat. But that really isn’t so important a point. The real issue is that She and BILL are both accepted by the Bilderberg Group and Hillary has been endorsed by the Rothschild family. She is the perfect shill for the elites. She has a history of being such. You argument with respect to Hillary is both fatuous and naive.
McCain, of course, has a proven track record of doing precisely what the folks who own the middle management of the US desire. Your argument is specious.
In all actuality, the elites can live with anybody who reaches this stage in the primaries because, after all, it is they who facilitate their progress. They are All congruent with the objectives of the elites. The candidates … the ones that have any publicity whatsoever, are chosen for us; from whom we get the nice ‘democratic’ opportunity to chose our faux preference.
So, Mr. Diebold, get a clue. You’re simply a shill. And not a terribly articulate one. eh?
January 10, 2008 at 4:20 am |
…In all actuality, the elites can live with anybody who reaches this stage in the primaries…
So, medicis, then why rig it for anyone?
PS Did I miss it, or has nobody offered any source for this bias data?
January 10, 2008 at 4:22 am |
nikolai, it seems there are paper ballots in this case, the Scantron optical card ballots the voters filled out. Go get yourself some legal status, then go count ’em by hand. Bring some styptic for the paper cuts!
Are people this paranoid about ATMs? I don’t believe I’ve ever caught one in a lie.
January 10, 2008 at 4:25 am |
I’m just wondering if you could post your sources for these numbers? I’m not saying you’re lying, just writin a paper.
January 10, 2008 at 4:26 am |
@Hagrin-
If people are not intelligent enough to fill out a freaking ballot then why should we go out of our way and spend money on voice recognition?
I can see it now…
“State the candidate you wish to vote for”
“CLAY AIKEN”
January 10, 2008 at 5:50 am |
eVoting & New Hampshire
Transparency and believability. The one leads to the other when we’re talking about votes. Counting votes.
Ohio is moving to paper ballots for its primary. New Hampshire may be wishing that it had. I’m waiting to see analysis of the vote v…
January 10, 2008 at 8:31 am |
[…] I was not very surprised when I saw this work come out, instead quietly muttered “right on time.” I was planning on spending my night tracking […]
January 10, 2008 at 10:06 am |
[…] Diebold and New Hampshire […]
January 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
[…] this one and this one compare machine (diebold) count to hand count. […]
January 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
I don’t understand why a recount is _ever_ a bad thing. If it is suggested every time there is a question about validity of the tally, then why not address the concerns for once (or every time!)? Is our democracy really hurt if we recount and the results match? It seems a very simple question, easily put to rest. Why is this not a seriously addressed issue?
All one needs to do nowadays is say “conspiracy theory” and if your views differ from the mainstream you are outcast, all your arguments and viewpoints immediately null and void, presumed extremist. Coherent discourse seems rarer and rarer in the soap opera style, Fox’ed up political climate. I dare consider this is not by accident.
January 10, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
We apreciate your lucidity in your analitical view.
January 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
[…] attracting supporters from both partiesRon Paul Teaches Laura Ingraham A Few Badly Needed LessonsDid Diebold rig New Hampshire?Ron Paul On CNN During New Hampshire Primary West Virginia Sticks With Electronic Voting MachinesRon […]
January 10, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
[…] Diebold and New Hampshire […]
January 10, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
Well Karl Rove seems to prefer Hillary:
Why Hillary Won
[ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html ]
Maybe it is because neo-conservatism is actually a bi-partisan effort? Some think of her husband as the first neo-con president:
Bill Clinton: First Neocon President
[ http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1976/81/ ]
😉
January 10, 2008 at 10:39 pm |
What I find most interesting is that the analysis next day on the news talked about how Clinton won the vote of the older women in NH, and that is what propelled her to the top, in part. (How she teared up a little, and then Edwards dissed her for showing emotion, implying that she lacked strength.) How do they know this? Isn’t our voting supposed to be anonymous?
Marci
January 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
Another tool for analyzing hand vs. Diebold counted votes:
http://neggie.net/vote2008/nh_primary.cgi
Draw your own conclusions. Do your own analysis.
January 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm |
Excuse me, but the logic here is atrocious. Hillary cheated by 2.7% instead of by 11%, so there was no cheating at all? Your own numbers show that the difference in vote totals CANNOT be attributed only to rural vs urban districts.
Everyone acknowledges she did better in larger cities, but according to your chart on the vote totals in similar sized districts, she did 2.2% better than she should have, Obama did 0.5% worse (and the rest of the field did 1.7% worse). Without additional statistical analysis, the only logical conclusion is that she did 7.6% better in urban districts than the field and she cheated by 4.4% in those districts, to give her a swing of 11% over Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc. Now, 4.4% not only covers the margin of victory, but also explains why exit polls showed a 2% Obama win.
Please, if you don’t know how to use statistics, don’t try to use them to prove your own predisposed belief. And what’s worse, when they disprove your belief, dismiss them with a blithe little sentence that correlation is not causation. I don’t know the truth, but in what you’ve written there is absolutely NO evidence that Hillary did not cheat. The only evidence is that she cheated by 4% and not 11%.
January 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
[…] This remarkably sane liberal posits reasons to believe Diebold had nothing to do with it. What has me scratching my head is his or her insistence on paper ballots. Paper ballots […]
January 11, 2008 at 7:51 pm |
My ‘theory’: this was done not by the Clintons, but by the Republican party. They have the technology, and seem to have been down this road before. Many Republican leaders have publically stated a preference for going against Hillary in the big election. They thinbk they can beat Hillary; they don’t think they can beat Obama.
January 12, 2008 at 3:33 am |
[…] Diebold and New Hampshire […]
January 12, 2008 at 3:50 am |
Here’s the only real statistical analysis I’ve seen so far. It says there’s a correlation between voting method and Clinton. It also seems to exclude city size as a relevant factor…
Read it for yourself. Judge yourself. I didn’t write, just discovered it.
http://call-with-current-continuation.blogspot.com/2008/01/statistical-exploration-of-new.html
January 12, 2008 at 3:59 am |
[…] A blog post that views the statistics, and raises some points. I recommend you read it. […]
January 12, 2008 at 5:39 am |
Based on your data, even after accounting for district size, Clinton got a bump that you fail to explain. Honestly, this analysis seems amateur — you fail to even mention errors, which are essential to doing any meaningful statistics — yet you feel it appropriate to conclude and suggest you know what you are doing.
Also, as someone else mentioned, Obama did BETTER IN URBAN AREAS in Iowa, which you have failed to note or explain why Clinton would now do better here. This was a weak analysis with worthless commentary.
January 12, 2008 at 6:48 am |
I have to stop you there. I would hold that we as a nation are not interested in “likelihoods” or “correlations” when it comes to voting. We want a rock solid, open and transparent system. We have exactly the opposite. Let us not waste any more time with likelihoods and correlations. Let’s go after Congress hard and get open source balloting with paper trail mandatory in all 50 states by federal law. And watch who comes crawling out from under the rocks to protest this vicious attack on the existing system. That should be some good fun.
January 12, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
Sorry if this was addressed on the thread already as I did not read each post first.
At first glance this analysis seems great, but the question that came to my mind was. What is the difference between votes counted by hand and votes counted by Diebold when the voter population is between 900-1000. It seems that the analysis only divided the votes in that range by urban and rural.
However, the discrepancy holds true for hand vs. diebold when you take into account the size of the voting population independent of whether you designate it as urban vs. rural.
Which does not make statistical sense. No kind of way should the variance be according to the TYPE of ballot independent vs. the size of the voting population.
January 12, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
Tom Riemer has the right statistical variance analysis.
If there is a correlation between ballot TYPES and Clintons votes…that smacks of voter fraud.
The ratio of votes between Obama and Clinton could not randomly occur by chance according to the type of ballot.
That is statistically implausible in terms of random occurence.
January 14, 2008 at 6:53 pm |
[…] — a blog which brands itself as “Politics with a spreadsheet and a calculator” — offers a concise and easy to read summary of the results, as reported, in Diebold vs. Hand-Counted precincts in New Hampshire, along with a […]
January 14, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
All this suspicion and turmoil is why statistically significant audits must be mandatory and automatic in every election.
Said audits should be done by an independent body not associated with the original counting and open and observable by any interested citizen.
January 15, 2008 at 5:20 am |
[…] that used the Diebold counters and places that hand counted, a more thorough look at the numbers doesn’t suggest anything nefarious. However, the really key point is that, thanks to years of doubletalk from e-voting vendors, as […]
January 15, 2008 at 7:40 am |
I hope the discussions make more sense after the recount.
January 17, 2008 at 2:33 am |
[…] my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy membership talking… Update: This remarkably sane liberal posits reasons to believe Diebold had nothing to do with it. What has me scratching my head is his or her insistence on paper ballots. Paper ballots can’t be […]
January 25, 2008 at 9:36 am |
We definitely need to write our Congressperson demanding support for a bill requiring a paper ballot for every voter. It must be passed in time before the November election. We cannot tolerate another 4 years with another President that we did not elect. I thought this was a democracy!!!!
January 27, 2008 at 4:34 am |
Sooooooooooooo did Diebold take the week off in SC?
February 17, 2008 at 3:49 am |
[…] Districts," or voting centers that utilized the machines. Some are claiming fraud, while others are breaking out the stats to show a clear Diebold Advantage for […]
February 28, 2008 at 5:51 pm |
[…] that used the Diebold counters and places that hand counted, a more thorough look at the numbers doesn’t suggest anything nefarious. However, the really key point is that, thanks to years of doubletalk from e-voting vendors, as […]
June 7, 2008 at 7:54 am |
lexapro…
…
August 14, 2008 at 2:37 am |
11322. [url=http://www.linkedin.com/in/freecreditreport][b]Credit Free Report Trans Union[/b][/url]
11491. [url=http://www.imeem.com/people/QKv5eRw/blogs/2008/08/09/s4RhHZsq/bad_credit_student_loans_loans_for_student_with_bad_credit][b]Bad Car Credit Loan Student[/b][/url]