netmouse: (Default)
netmouse ([personal profile] netmouse) wrote2008-01-11 07:59 am

(no subject)

Kucinich calls for recount in NH.


In the last year not a lot of people have been talking about the fact that two years ago lots of watchdog groups were saying we were not ready to have a presidential election we could depend on--many of the electronic ballot-counting systems were actually worse at the time (for accountability) than New Hampshire's, which at least appears to keep a copy of a physical ballot. I'm not sure how far we've gotten since then.

One analysis group reports of the NH primary that comparison of *some* hand-counted ballots with *all* the electronic ballots show eerily switched percentages for Obama and Clinton compared to the total count reported. What's that Scalzi was just saying about how hard Clinton would fight for this election? Seriously, though, numbers do weird things sometimes. It's not always a conspiracy. But I'd like to see a recount like this done at a time when no one can argue the whole national economy is waiting with baited breath for the results and that therefore (this argument never held water for me) we have to stop counting the votes. Please, please, please, let's not have another Florida/Ohio/etc. situation. This is America. We really ought to be able to get this voting thing down. It's not really that complicated.

[identity profile] marsgov.livejournal.com 2008-01-11 04:37 pm (UTC)(link)
The other question is whether or not people from neighboring states came to vote in NH. I've heard rumors that the laws are sufficiently lax to allow a simple declaration of intent to live in NH suffices to vote in the primary.

The other is the "get real" factor. A three percent difference in the vote count at this level isn't a victory; it's a tie.