I used the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines. The results were astonishing. :
Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) - Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.
By Percentage
| Method | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama |
|---|---|---|
| Diebold Machines | 53.23% | 46.77% |
| Hand Count | 47.47% | 52.53% |
By Votes
| Method | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama |
|---|---|---|
| Diebold Machines | 82860 | 72807 |
| Hand Count | 18898 | 20912 |
By Number of Municipalities Won
| Method | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama |
|---|---|---|
| Diebold Machines | 54 | 33 |
| Hand Count | 43 | 77 |
About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines.
Comments
There's no rigging
You don't know anything about statistics. Your results are not statistically significant.
Same applies to your comment
What do you know about this data? You don't know either. Recounts are in order whenever these vulnerable machines are used. It's the only way to know.
You might want to take the
You might want to take the statistics course again if you think this is not significant.
Re: There's no rigging
Sarcasm is not understood by the majority, it seems :-)
uqenqxs
rtyfwn http://vuxufg.com gwapewc rtyfwn nuyajfc [URL=http://tfvtwqv.com]peqyiew[/URL]
How do you know they're not?
How do you know they're not? How about a standard deviation?
Yes it is.
You're looking at a difference of 6%, friend. with sample sizes of 160,000 and 40,000 respectively, not even counting votes for other candidates. That appears to be very safely within the realm of statistical significance.
You mean, statistical
You mean, statistical insignficance.
Given Diebold's history and reputation, hand counts should be required even if the results match perfectly.
If the source of this data
If the source of this data is all the votes from these municipalities, it is not a sample.
All of the big cities use
All of the big cities use Diebold. Hillary was very popular in big cities like Manchester. Obama tended to do better in the smaller cities and towns, which are more likely to use hand counting.
since when are cities more conservative than rural?
"All of the big cities use Diebold. Hillary was very popular in big cities"
OK, your argument is that a black president is going to be less popular in the big city than in a rural area? Really?
I am pretty sure that if these results showed the exact opposite, you would claim that that made sense as well.
"OK, your argument is that a
"OK, your argument is that a black president is going to be less popular in the big city than in a rural area? Really?"
If a person has an issue with a black person that person is probably going to have a problem with a woman too. The only people making a big deal out of race is the clan and the media.
Do you know anything about
Do you know anything about the candidates, or just the color of their respective skins?
Wait. There are big cities
Wait. There are big cities in New Hampshire?!
Since when
Since when the hell isnt an election rigged.
Keep Checking
Statistically significant or not, I say keep checking. There is never an issue with checking and rechecking numbers (or in this case votes) when so much is on the line. I applaud the effort and hope that more people are doing it.
Recently testimony was given stating that efforts were made to falsify vote counts in past elections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
Republican side is even worse
Romney picked up about 14,000 votes in the diebold count. Mccain, Huckabee and Paul each lost about 3000. The statistical insignificance argument is invalid.
I'm a little gassy
my-o-my all these statistics make me have gas.
All the talk about
All the talk about statistical significance is nonsense, we are not trying to estimate a population from a sample. The hand count and the machine count should be almost identical or else there is a huge problem -- the machine is only there to facilitate the hand count. Even a tenth of a percent error would be a problem.
However, I only see percentages here. How many votes were incorrectly tallied? I'm not going to go off of the deep end on this one yet -- if there were such a huge difference between the hand count and the machine count I'm pretty sure that the election officials would not be able to hide it. If they were mendacious you wouldn't be able to get the data. Something must be wrong with the interpretation -- either that or we have the story of the century here.
I believe these aren't hand
I believe these aren't hand counts of the same data the machines counted. I believe the comparison is between districts that use machines and districts that don't.
Who's checking?
I agree, however nobody seems to care about the accuracy of our voting machines (not to mention vulnurability to tampering). This is one thing about america that i can't understand, it seems like
someone
would care enough about collecting the correct data.
Of course, with our ridiculous electoral college it doesn't matter if we're off by 5 or 6 percent right?
Story of the century
Actually, the story of the century is that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! Check out the video presentation 9/11: Blueprint For Truth by Architect Richard Gage of ae911truth.org. Here's the link: http://tinyurl.com/2fvmn6
Two more stories to check out:
"Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks"
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ypznam
“For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets”
Source: http://tinyurl.com/2s2key
Entrance Polls
I was shocked by the number of entrance polls that showed intent for Ron Paul, yet he received roughly half the percentage of what was expected.
I'd like to see a link to
I'd like to see a link to these entrance polls that show that... I saw that the exit polls showed 10% for Paul while the "real" results show 7.6%, I find that strange...
I'm confused.
I'd like some clarification; it sounds to me like the hand-count numbers and the diebold numbers are from two COMPLETELY different data-sets. The popular vote depends a lot on locality, and therefore even a discrepancy of 100% to 0% would be statistically insignificant; there's simply nothing for statistics to say unless you have accurate models of voter deviation in different municipalities inside New Hampshire, which AFAIK no one has.
As has been said, given diebold's track record, you should order recounts on everything. I'm just stating that I get the nagging feeling this post is vastly overhyping the likelyhood of tampering here.
The discrepancy between the results and the exit and entry polls is far more signficant, though you still can't apply the term 'statistical significance' to it.
If I misunderstand and these numbers are for the same sampleset, it's statistically not just 'significant', but a big giant red warning light that the machines have been rigged. It's a few levels beyond winning the lottery that random counting accidents would cause such a large discrepancy. Even in that situation it could just be incompetence instead of deliberate tampering, but either verdict is pretty dismal (vast incompetence or deliberate tampering). We're also implicitly assuming that the hand count is less suspect, but I see where that's coming from.
Bullshit from a New Hampshirite
No, no, and no. I'm a born and bred New Hampshire, one who is interested in both candidates, and I'll tell you right now: this doesn't fit the political profile of New Hampshire. We're genuinely one of the squeakiest-clean states when it comes to corruption. The big-city-rural-debate makes much more sense here. Look at the map at the NY Times on where Obama was popular--out in the western part of the state by Keene--VERY rural besides Keene--and right up the river to Canada--VERY rural, excluding Hanover, which is not really a city either. Lots of hand counting.
Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere, bub
it only takes a few
Regardless of how "clean" NH might be, the problem with these machines is that a small number of people can hack them without detection by the most fair-minded of election officials. If you're confident about the validity of the voting process, then you shouldn't oppose scrutiny of all of the paper trail and of the machine code by independent examination.
I did a lot more analysis on this...
I just made this after the primary closed. It shows all the different percentages on both sides. in my humble and non-professional opinion, it does look suspect. The differences between machine and hand counting seem significant.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php
HILLARY HAS WON AND THIS WIN
HILLARY HAS WON AND THIS WIN WAS A CLEAN WIN. OBAMA GAVE HIS SPEECH AND IT WAS A CLEAN SPEECH. IF YOU SHOULD START WITH THIS MOMBO JOMBO IT WILL HURT OBAMA EVEN MORE. SO, GIVE IT UP FELLAS!
It shows how ignorant you
It shows how ignorant you are. to make such a statement. I guess you control the poll now. By saying that "such statement is going to hurt Obama even more". Is there any different between you and terrorist. "Racist"
Lets propose the
Lets propose the hypothetical scenario whereby a law is passed that enforces a mandatory death sentence by being burned alive for any offender or corporation caught rigging a vote in any state or federal election. Burned alive in a public area such that the constituents you sought to disenfranchise could observe your agonizing demise.
How much support would a law get from the American people? Perhaps its time to revisit just what democracy actually entails. When the integrity of your electoral system starts to mirror that of a 3rd world shit-hole dictatorship, then its only a matter of time before the frauds, criminals, warlords, murderers, terrorists and traitors that become your political leaders also turn your nation into said aforementioned oppressive dictatorship.
eight years ago
>When the integrity of your electoral system starts to mirror that of a 3rd world shit-hole dictatorship, then its only a matter of time before the frauds, criminals, warlords, murderers, terrorists and traitors that become your political leaders also turn your nation into said aforementioned oppressive dictatorship.
say George W. Bush ?
Haha. It's funny because
Haha. It's funny because there's still people who believe that election results in the United States represent the voters bidding.
Vote
If you don't vote, you're letting your government treat you like a felon. Voting is the only way for your voice to be heard. If you truly believe that your vote carries no weight- you're letting your government decide for you- you've given up and decided to live under a dictatorship. Democracy takes work. If you feel your vote has no weight- DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I think the point is voting
I think the point is voting in the US *is* voting for authoritarian representatives who have the right to tell other people what to do, and it *IS NOT* about voting for the laws directly.
This is why George W. Bush can start a war even though a very significant portion of the population is against it. If it had anything to do with democracy and voting for your ideals this would be quite different. But this is about voting for ONE person who will have the power to start wars, make secret agreements with other countries, and god knows what else has been done in the name of national security. So I think voting in the US is akin to voting for a dictator.
The key is the fact that these votes are from different places
Machines tend to be used in bigger towns & cities. Hand counting in smaller places. I don't know why Hilary would be more likely to be popular in the towns - but the overriding likely hood is that this is simply the answer. You US guys are always so convinced that someone is rigging something - which does happen - but is not more likely than a fairly common demographic difference (guess what - cities and small towns often vote for different candidates).
The simplest explanation is almost always the actual explanation.
yeah, fine, BUT...
everybody thought that larger towns would go for Obama, just like they did in Iowa.
sample standard deviation, mean?
Can you get us the samples' standard deviations and means? Then we can use the standard error to estimate the population mean, and see just how significant the differences are.
Wait a cotton pickin' minute...
Ok so you're saying that because one sample prefers one candidate and one sample prefers the other, because they happen to use different counting methods, the election is rigged.
I admit I was shocked by Clinton's turn around, but this is FAR from conclusive.
Was wondering, is there a
Was wondering, is there a peer review process for any Diebold count? I mean, if the data is gathered by the Diebold voting machines, who actually reads the data and summarizes the counts? Diebold? An outside source? Both?? And why does the electronic machine count not print out a paper document after the voter clicks which he/she could give to the people running the local voting booth house?
It seems so logical and "easy" to have a check and balance for these electronic machines, but yet I hear nothing of this?? Why?
Never have SO MANY polls been so wrong, WHY?
smells fishy
Never have SO MANY polls been so wrong, WHY?
smells fishy
Pre-vote-poll vs Exit-poll
First of all the only poll number that was "wrong" was the anticipated number of votes for Sen. Clinton. The pre-vote numbers for Senators Obama and Edwards were basically right on; so apparently Clinton got the vast majority of the undecided vote. Not only that, but the exit polling "validated" the results (and I do use the term loosely). So the pre vote polls were wrong for one candidate only; it appears that the undecided voters of NH waited until they got to the polling station to make up their mind. With all that said … I do NOT trust Diebold and feel that there MUST be a way to use a paper trail to validate the vote when needed. Printing the numbers out of the computer that is suspect is not a valid paper trail.
Hope Hilliary Doesn't Win
Because she won't win the November Election... At least Obama has a chance in November...
Apples and Oranges
I have an apple over here, and they have an orange over there, and my guy lost so it must be a conspiracy by the evil orange growers cartel (most of which are freemasons btw)... And you know where oranges come from? Florida. The same place where my guy lost in 2000. So, that means that when we compare anything that includes oranges it's rigged. And you know what? Not many people want you to know this, but the other guy's campaign gave out *orange juice* to their staffers in the morning for those who didn't want coffee. They could have chosen apple juice, or cranberry juice, or whatever but they didn't. They chose orange juice. I think that any reasonable person can only come to the conclusion that the fact that they gave out *orange juice* PROVES they KNEW the election was rigged and that they were going to win... OMG It's so clear now...
You have a point. Can we
You have a point. Can we really compare results that were not both counted by hand and by the machine?
Wow, you went to all that trouble
just to sound silly? Please comment about the issue.
This is a reply to Apples and Oranges.
It is a comment about the
It is a comment about the "issue" that is being made out of comparing two dissimilar groups of data and claiming that there is some sort of dark conspiracy going on.
can i do my own research on this?
Hi
Please send me the all the data u have regarding this. I want to talk to 3 very good statistician and also do a tv show on this on my community TV. Send the datat to gugusgoli@yahoo.com.
thanks
Has anyone done this kind of
Has anyone done this kind of analysis on Iowa? Let's not give Diebold or anyone else the benefit of the doubt simply because Obama won there. If this turns into a systematic problem state by state, then we have more evidence.
Other things to consider. Does Diebold primary serve urban areas with larger populations or smaller towns? Who campaigned more in each by state? Can we compared exit polls to final numbers? Can we see the same sort of effects with Republican and lower tier candidates? All of these questions by themselves won't tell you much, but put it all together for every primary and you may begin to see a pattern. It's a big undertaking that's gonna require a lot of people, but it's not impossible.
Post new comment