"Vote Fraud CONFIRMED - Paper vs. Electronic Ballots
Ron Paul War Room
Tuesday January 9, 2008
A Ron Paul fan has put together this wonderful little table that shows precisely what happened in the towns with paper ballots vs. the towns with Diebold Accuvote optical scanner electronic voting machines.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php
You can see clearly by looking at the column in red how much the electronic voting machines gave or took away from a candidate. Ron Paul lost 2%+, whereas Giuliani got a 0.5% boost, stealing 4th from Ron Paul. You can also see that Mitt Romney really didn’t have 31%, but something closer to 25%, a throw of 6% in his favor.
If you’re skeptical that these numbers are indeed meaningful, just look at the Democratic field using the link on the page. No statistical difference except for 2 candidates: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton got a 5-point boost from the machines, whereas Obama got a 2-point drop. With only a 3-point spread in the final count, it is obvious that Obama won New Hampshire - the establishment throws for their fellow Bilderberger.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/090108Fraud.htm"
Also see:
Stolen Elections (Part 1)
Stolen Elections (Part 2)
Proof of Vote Fraud in New Hampshire
Need more proof, readers?
"SUSAN ESTRICH BLOWS THE RIGGED ELECTION WIDE OPEN
"At around 3:00 Susan Estrich states "...Ron Paul, on that theory, is not going to be president." to which Shepard Smith replies "How do we know he's not going to be president?" and Susan then replies "Yeah, we'll fix that one."
"You may have to listen a couple times to pick it up, because Smith keeps talking right over Susan, but she does in fact say "We'll fix that" in response to Shepherd's "How do we know he's not going to be president?" -- Mike Rivero of What Really Happened
No. I heard it the FIRST TIME!
And here we are today.
" Results: Precincts where Ron Paul had 0-3 votes total
Ron Paul War Room
Tuesday January 9, 2008
I took this from ronrox.com and ran through the list out of curiosity. With as little as 5 votes total in some areas it is understandable that some candidates get no votes, but when you start to get up around the 100+ area things can start to stink real quick. The most outstanding one is ofcourse Sutton which we’ve all heard about already. 386 votes total and not 1 for Ron Paul? I call bullshit. Anyway, for people with boots on the ground and the will to look into it by taking a trip to these areas to ask around who voted for R.P. heres the list. It sure wouldn’t be to hard to find more than the numbers listed here.
Vote Data Sourced From: www.politico.com
Dixville - 7 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 1 votes = 14.29%
- Huckabee = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 4 votes = 57.14%
- Paul = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Romney = 2 votes = 28.57%
- Thompson = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Other = 0 votes = 0.00%
_______________
Easton - 52 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 4 votes = 7.69%
- Huckabee = 7 votes = 13.46%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 25 votes = 48.08%
- Paul = 3 votes = 5.77%
- Romney = 12 votes = 23.08%
- Thompson = 1 votes = 1.92%
- Other = 0 votes = 0.00%
___________
Ellsworth - 17 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 2 votes = 11.76%
- Huckabee = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 10 votes = 58.82%
- Paul = 1 votes = 5.88%
- Romney = 3 votes = 17.65%
- Thompson = 1 votes = 5.88%
- Other = 0 votes = 0.00%
__________________
Greenville - 144 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 16 votes = 11.11%
- Huckabee = 32 votes = 22.22%
- Hunter = 5 votes = 3.47%
- McCain = 86 votes = 59.72%
- Paul = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Romney = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Thompson = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Other = 5 votes = 3.47%
______________________
Landaff - 91 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 8 votes = 8.79%
- Huckabee = 12 votes = 13.19%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 45 votes = 49.45%
- Paul = 3 votes = 3.30%
- Romney = 19 votes = 20.88%
- Thompson = 2 votes = 2.20%
- Other = 2 votes = 2.20%
________________________
Millsfield - 5 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Huckabee = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 3 votes = 60.00%
- Paul = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Romney = 1 votes = 20.00%
- Thompson = 1 votes = 20.00%
- Other = 0 votes = 0.00%
_______________________
Roxbury - 33 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 2 votes = 6.06%
- Huckabee = 4 votes = 12.12%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 17 votes = 51.52%
- Paul = 2 votes = 6.06%
- Romney = 6 votes = 18.18%
- Thompson = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Other = 2 votes = 6.06%
________________________
Stratford - 61 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 5 votes = 8.20%
- Huckabee = 13 votes = 21.31%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 24 votes = 39.34%
- Paul = 3 votes = 4.92%
- Romney = 10 votes = 16.39%
- Thompson = 1 votes = 1.64%
- Other = 5 votes = 8.20%
___________________________
Sutton - 386 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 51 votes = 13.21%
- Huckabee = 45 votes = 11.66%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 160 votes = 41.45%
- Paul = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Romney = 119 votes = 30.83%
- Thompson = 3 votes = 0.78%
- Other = 8 votes = 2.07%
_________________________
Waterville - 71 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD:
- Giuliani = 3 votes = 4.23%
- Huckabee = 9 votes = 12.68%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 32 votes = 45.07%
- Paul = 1 votes = 1.41%
- Romney = 24 votes = 33.80%
- Thompson = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Other = 2 votes = 2.82%
__________________________
Wentworth’s Location - 5 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD:
- Giuliani = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Huckabee = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Hunter = 0 votes = 0.00%
- McCain = 3 votes = 60.00%
- Paul = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Romney = 2 votes = 40.00%
- Thompson = 0 votes = 0.00%
- Other = 0 votes = 0.00%
Hopefully we have people on the site from these areas that can shed some light on this.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/090108Precincts.htm"
I smell a HUGE, STEAMING STINKER, readers!
Fills up the room!
"NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results"
"Ron Paul On CNN During New Hampshire Primary"
And we gotta check into this one:
"Did Diebold rig New Hampshire?"
"Related
81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier")
Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H.
Obama and Paul poll workers kicked out of some precincts
S.C. to use voting machines banned in other states
Obama and Paul poll workers kicked out of some precincts
---
Diebold and New Hampshire
At the completion of the New Hampshire primaries, certain elements are are claiming an “astonishing” discrepancy between the results tallied by hand and those tallied by Diebold machines. Naturally reddit jumped on the bandwagon as fast as possible. Here are the results as of 96% precincts reporting (NB: others include Biden, Gravel and Dodd, CNN didn’t provide info for the rest of the field when I collated the data. The rest accounted for about 1% of the vote):
| | Hand | Diebold | Difference |
| Clinton | 35.17% | 40.71% | 5.54% |
| Obama | 39.20% | 36.24% | -2.96% |
| Edwards | 17.71% | 16.97% | -0.74% |
| Richardson | 5.64% | 4.40% | -1.24% |
| Kucinich | 1.89% | 1.25% | -0.64% |
| Others | 0.49% | 0.44% | -0.05% |
At first glance, the results seem to backup the conspiracy theorists. Is it possible that Clinton’s vote could be so much greater in the Diebold Districts and every other candidate slightly less without foul play? Has Diebold rigged the count in Hillary’s favor? Or is there something else at play?
Whilst Hand Districts are more numerous than Diebold Districts, they tend to be in less populous areas and far fewer votes are hand-counted than tallied by machine. Note that this table currently excludes the 9 Hand Districts and 2 Diebold Districts that have yet to report results.
| # of Districts | Votes Cast | Votes/Districts | |
| Diebold | 95 | 222,464 | 2341.73 |
| Hand | 131 | 56,812 | 433.68 |
The discrepency may just be a matter of demographics: urban voters may like Hillary more than rural voters. So what happens when we looks at similarly sized districts? Here are the results in districts where between 900 and 1200 votes were cast.
| | Hand | Diebold | Difference |
| Clinton | 35.90% | 38.09% | 2.19% |
| Obama | 38.00% | 37.47% | -0.53% |
The effect is far smaller when comparing similar districts, but probably not enough to arrest the fears of conspiracy theorists. In the end, Clinton won because she was more popular in the large precincts which happen to be tallied by Diebold machines. Correlation, not causation seems more likely to me.
| | Votes Cast in Precinct | ||
| | Under 1000 | 1000-2000 | Over 2000 |
| Clinton | 36.26% | 39.20% | 41.25% |
| Obama | 38.02% | 36.84% | 36.29% |
| Difference | -1.76% | 2.36% | 4.96% |
There are so many variables in an election result that to put Hillary’s win down to jiggery-pokery without any real evidence is over the top. Demographics of the turnout and McCain siphoning Independents away from Obama at the last minute are infinitely more likely to have affected the than Diebold skullduggery.
For democracy to work, the system must be transparent and maintain the confidence of its participants. Proprietary voting machines fail both these tests. American, as far as I know, are still capable of counting, so should return exclusively to the paper ballot.
Tags: barack, clinton, edwards, election, hillary, new hampshire, obama, president, primary, statistic
This entry was posted on January 9, 2008 at 10:15 am ""Clinton Received a 4.5% Boost In "Diebold" Towns"
"Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Do NH Primary Statistics Show Election Fraud?
