Wednesday, January 9, 2008

New Hampshire Primaries- Voter fraud?

The positive from the results of the NH primaries are of course: Obama didn't win and neither did Mitt Romney. As I mentioned previously, Hillary would be doing better had she got more women involved in her campaign- being less androgynous and appealing to women voters by being a woman herself would help. It did help, she won.

Hillary is my first runner up. Meaning if Ron Paul doesn't get the nominee from the Republicans, I will vote Hillary. I feel that she is the most educated and most tactical nominee. She isn't going to bring the revolution, but neither is Obama. The only president that COULD do that is Ron Paul.

McCain is alright to me. I feel like his time was in the past, last election. He is a little too conservative to me. At least Mitt Romney didn't win (I will say it again).

Huckabee is my second runner up, as if Paul and Clinton don't get nominees I will vote for Huckabee. Although I am not a fan of the religious thing, Huckabee takes an American stand point on many things. A lot of this is repetitive so I will instead talk about some of the controversy.

Controversy- more of the buzz word in this campaign than "change" is. I don't want to give the impression of being in this alleged Ron Paul cult that people speak of. I am a newly found Ron Paul supporter, not a radical supporter. I don't show these findings in a way to spark a conspiracy theory, but I cannot find any other explanation for things I have read and seen with my own eyes.

First,
a New Hampshire girl claims vote fraud in the town of Sutton. The small town has a tiny population and its citizens are all a tight knit family. They all know who they voted for and can't understand that how three of them have come forward as voting for Paul, yet according to the political map- Paul got ZERO votes in Sutton. They don't believe the fraudulent activity happened at the actual site, but was a mistake made on a larger scale.

In regards to voter fraud, I was personally a victim of suspicious activity yesterday. I do my primary/caucus following by way of CNN. When CNN announced that each county could be followed on CNN.com during the New Hampshire primary, I was intrigued. I wanted to see how each county broke down, so I knew who had the biggest all around following. I wanted to see how Ron Paul/Rudy Guiliani/Mike Huckabee sat in comparison.

I looked county by county, very close calls. Sometimes Paul had the most votes of the three, other times Guiliani or Huckabee did. I was pleasantly surprised to see Paul win two counties. Then I noticed that Pittsfield, a smaller county in New Hampshire, had interesting results. Paul had 168 votes- 25% of the county, however where it said reporting (and every other county reporting votes read 100% reporting) Pittsfield said 0% reporting- although Paul had won the county according to the posted results. I made note of this and showed a fellow Paul supporter.

I was curious to figure out what this meant. I continued looking through the county results and returned about 3 minutes later to the page that had Pittsfield's information. Pittsfield was now 100% reporting- Paul had 71 votes and 10%. How did he lose votes in a manner of 3 minutes. How were 168 people accounted for as voting for him and now 71 were? If anyone has an explanation out there I would love to hear it.

2 comments:

Nomen said...

(1) You should post your observations over at blackboxvoting.org. Contact Bev Harris.

(2) My head nearly exploded when you said that you would vote Hillary #2 to Ron Paul. Dr Paul getting your first vote, I can understand. He's what this country needs. But Hillary?? WTF? Then I read on, and you say that you are only new to the r3V0Lution. Ahh! That explains it. Keep reading/researching.

An interesting news article a couple of months back was themed "Ron Paul voters are non-transferrable". In it, the author made the astute observation that Ron Paul supporters generally see it as a two way split:
"ronpaulian perfection versus warmonger Statist scum". That is SO true! Hillary Clinton is WHOLLY EQUIVALENT with Rudy Giuliani in being "warmonger Statist scum". Once you study the issues some more, you'll understand, and come to the same conclusion.

Mark Hazlewood said...

The Fix is in — We must stop it.
The programmers from Israel created the software. The electronic
voting booths have long since been taken over by the ptb with this
software. I learned this from the X-CEO of American Free Press before
he resigned after finding out the ptb police force (CIA) had taken
over his paper. This was learned 4 years ago.
He said the machines themselves have 3 modes of which only 2 are taught to the operators. The other mode can be accessed REMOTELY to change votes.
There was at least one article written about this in the American Free
Press. This CEO (who’s now in his 80’s) family was also threatened if
he went into more detail about how the ptb fix elections. Today there may be another way they are doing this. I don’t know. There’s much
more than what has been mentioned here. If you think your vote counts
in all situations, think again. Many know Bush was never elected but
stole both elections. The Rabbit hole goes much deeper than most
suspect. The major media is almost completely owned by the ptb (powers that be). To
believe a major election won’t be tampered with is simply naive.
It turns out there were enough exit polls having been taken by mid
afternoon in NH to declare Obama a winner by a margin of 20%. A few
news broadcasts did just that!!! Clinton was all but conceding at that
time.
Fast forward to 8pm with 1% (tens of thousands) of the vote counted,
Obama looked to be even a bigger winner with 59% of the vote to Clinton’s 22% on the TV screen,
then the software (new or old) Magically kicked in all at once, Boom!
Today I found out the software has a code name: PROMISE is what they call it.
The software seemed to be very stiff and not at all even attempting to be life like or real.
There was no transitional period from Obama having 59% Hillary’s 22% to the
next percentages showing Hillary ahead by 2-4% (both in the mid to high 30’s).
From the time they turned on the software, there was no
fluctuations with them trading leads, which would certainly be true
during the early counting if the election was truly that close. Just the same 2-4% Hillary lead all the way from having 2% of the vote counted on up. So the PROMISE software kicked in early but not at the beginning of the count & because of how stiff it
was for those in the know it was PLAINLY OBVIOUSLY BEING USED.
Please spread around. The rest of this election will be the same if
something isn’t done.
Mark H
Look what I found here. I’m not the only one crying foul.
Voting fraud is clear in the NH primary. The voting machines need to
be shut down, turned off, broken if need be to count votes accurately
& by hand & stop the dishonesty.
http://www.thebarac kobamareport. com/the_barack_ obama_report/ 2008/01/voting- machine.html? cid=96546058# comments
January 09, 2008
VOTING MACHINE VERSUS HAND COUNT SHOWS OBAMA ACTUALLY WON IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
The Diebald Voting Machines miscount votes and precients and hand
count shows Sen. Obama actually won in New Hampshire.
Diebold favors Hillary, hand count for Obama
Wed, 01/09/2008 - 05:46 - clark
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

Mark Hazlewood