What happened with the NH recount?

[regularjoe]

Is it over? Did they find anything? Did Nader say anything?

[jamboi]

1. There have been several threads already on NH recount. n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

2. it was recounted . . . and just as Kerry said . . .

it made no difference. Kerry still won.


edited to correct stupid response . . . heh. (and ty for telling me . . . LOL)

[jamboi]

3. No, Kerry still won. NH, remember? Blue state! n/t

[bettyellen]

4. last week they did not find anything irregular going on

i have not heard about what happened when they resuned this week, but i assume i would have heard if it wasn't more of the same.
they are saying there were major demographic shifts to repug in areas where things seemed fishy.

[righteous1]

7. Don't forget Nader picked up 3 votes gained .000036% n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

13. LOL

[berniew1]

5. There were close states Kerry lost that needed recount. Why N H???

I never saw a good explanation for why they chose N H for a recount.
There was evidence of problems in other states that had close elections that called out for recount/investigation. Who chose these precincts in N H and why? It couldn't have changed anything, and wasn't likely to. It was a very bad choice for recount; like the 3 small counties in Florida that were recounted.

[jamboi]

6. The idea was that this was a Blue state where they wouldn't have to hassle

with a Repub. admin to get it done. #2 There were big discrepencies in exit polling vs tallies, and #3 Nader had standing to do it. He tried it with the thought if things were uncovered in a limited recount he would expand it statewide. I don't think they were able to find much, but again there are other threads that go into much depth on this, and I'd suggest resurrecting one of those.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Having lived in NH for many years (now in MA) . . . one need

only peruse the damn country-side in NH to know that there's no fooling around with the voting mechanisms nor personnel in NH! Nader should never have done it, period. And, I've said THAT all along.

[righteous1]

8. Supposedly they wanted to hit a state

that had a wide discrepancy between exit polls and actual vote % NH 11% FL 6% OH 4%

[Yupster]

9. New Hampshire was chosen

because the exit polls deviated so much from the actual recorded vote.

Bush got 11 % more than the exit polls said he got.

So the idea was that you do a spot recount to find where Bush's mysterious 11 % came from. Then you discover it wasn't there, Kerry actually won by 12 % not one percent and somehow the vote was hacked to give Bush a padded 11 %.

Then you take that info to show that the same thing happened in other close states and voila, you've proven that Bush stole the election.

Except,

The spot checks showed that Bush in fact did get all the votes the results said he got.

In fact, it was the exit poll which was wildly wrong.

Which I think means it's time to look at the five steps of grieving and see what step is number two. Let's see ...

1. Denial
2. Anger

Expect to see lots of anger in the next few weeks.

[YellowDoginthehouse]

10. not til January 20

it ain't over til it's over.

[TaleWgnDg]

12. The exit polls were discounted as being erroneous . . . even

by the poll-taker CEO, fer chrissakes. Did anybody w/i Nader's entourage or any sane person anywhere LISTEN? No. What damn nonsense.

[rfrrfrrfr]

14. Posts like these make me wish

Foul language could be used on these boards.



For the last time Nader recounted NH at OUR request. Please see anoy of the six other dozen or so threads on this topic for a link to the original thread by Idabriggs that explains why we asked Nader to do the recount in NH.

[Old Mouse]

15. It does not factually prove Bush did get all the votes he got

It only shows our available method of checking does not explain the discrepancy. The discrepancy still exists, a dark dirty paradox quietly gnawing away at our critical thinking. We can't get over it.

We have an irresistible force and immovable object. Right now our government is telling us exit polls cannot vary from the final election results in the Ukraine. But in any election dealing with George Bush, they have. George Bush, and the Bush administration, and the Republican Senate says George Bush can not have won the election... the mind rebels!

Without a satisfying explanation as to why a system traditionally accurate to one or two percentage points can suddenly be off by eleven percent or more in the most significant election of our lives with the most dangerously ideological administration in our history we can never move into compliant stage of acceptance.

The recount was a good and noble try by people dedicated to preserving democracy, but the systematic tools at their disposal are designed to enhance accuracy, not detect fraud. Zogby offered another method, re-polling a chosen community and comparing it to the reported voting trends.

[Yupster]

16. That's true

you can never disprove a conspiracy. Any evidence that argues against it just shows the believers that the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought.

[Old Mouse]

19. there is a paradox

that must justify but will not justify.

Two systems of calculating public opinion. One system accurate for over 200 years to within a few percentage points, the other system wildly inaccurate, as any precinct recount in this country shows. They should in our technologically advanced age show comparative results, but do not in an election cycle rife with irregularities.

Bush condemned an electoral result from the system that gave him victory. When it comes to polls versus election results, he claims polls reflect the will of the people.

Make the paradox go away, don't fall back on dismissive phrases. You don't know me, or what I think happened. Words have power, use them in conjunction with moral clarity.

[Yupster]

20. No they don't have to justify

The exit poll can just be flawed.

The last time Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire won his reelection (92? 96?), the exit poll said he was getting killed so when the polls closed at 7:00 all three networks made their first big call of the night at 7:01 and it was wrong.

In 1988, the exit polls showed Dukakis easily beating Bush in Pennsylvania and all three networks colored it red or blue (no standard colors back then). It was the next morning that they changed the color without any fanfare as Bush won the state by over 100,000 votes. These are just from my own memory. Who knows how many cases there have been. The networks in the past were not real good at publicizing their errors. No internet 15 years ago to cal them on it either.

Certainly two years ago the whole system was screwed up.

So, no I don't agree that exit polls are always accurate. Sometimes they can be quite screwed up.

BTW, how do exit polls measure early voting? In Texas a third of all votes are cast before election day. Is there an accounting for this? If not, the poll would of course be crap.

[Old Mouse]

21. what you are talking about IS justification

Discover and reveal the inaccuracy. That is what these people are trying to do. It cannot be left as one of the many unanswered questions in this cycle.

An unsolved paradox with a decision of this magnitude will grow into a complete national distrust of our voting system, and the legitimacy of our government as a whole. A process that might already be irreparably happening. A recount of this nature is insufficient to reveal the possibility of technically supported voter fraud, or illegal campaign tactics nationally organized in a covert manner, but it is the only method available to determine which system of determining public opinion was more accurate. This is not about who won that state, it is a test of the system to see if it's flawed. To walk away without doing this would be irresponsible, and many people gave money, time and physical effort to try to verify the vote.

Good examples from your memory, but the networks didn't update poll data back then with the speed they do today either. If they changed color overnight it was from POLL DATA, not a vote count, which takes days, if not weeks. Check the other threads for poll accuracy, and its historical importance. Colin Powell spoke on the subject recently. So has Bush.

Re-poll a distinct and check the voting record, and thanks to all those who gave of themselves.

[jamboi]

18. Absolutely. We didn't get to recount the whole state even. Only examined

were 11 wards. So we are left with a strange exit poll vs. tally problem unexplained, and we don't know anything further about the rest of the state.

[KatieB]

22. They only recounted 11 precincts out of over 100

[garybeck]

17. How do you know those were the real ballots they "recounted"?

Trust no one.