Reply #47: New Hampshire's system is even more slipshod than most [View All]

[BevHarris]

There is no excuse for not even going through the motions of having the software checked. It allows anything at all to be on that software. What I said was that New Hampshire used software that had never been federally certified.

That's more lackadaisical, even, than most states.

The result: Statistical anomalies were present in the Dean/Kerry race. When questioned about its software, New Hampshire's officials simply said "we don't require federal certification, so it didn't have to be certified.

And they didn't do auditing correctly.

There are legitimate reasons to say that the results in the New Hampshire primary should have been questioned, the results should have been audited properly, and there is no reason whatsoever to accept the integrity of that election.

These criticisms could be alleviated, but there has been zero discussion on doing that in New Hampshire. So, like many other elections, it's reasonable to refer to it as New Hampshire*

Bev

Bev