The problems coming out of New
Hampshire are very, very serious. While these results
may distress Democrats who support Mrs. Clinton, and Republicans who support
Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani, the vote anomalies in the New
Hampshire primary are larger than the interests of
any one candidate. See below:
The unofficial vote tallies in the New
Hampshire primary can be divided into two categories,
votes counted by hand and votes counted by machine.
On the Democratic side,
·
Where votes were counted by machine, Clinton
came out with about 40 percent and Obama with about 35 percent.
- Where ballots
were counted by hand, Clinton
averaged 34 percent and Obama 38 percent.
On the Republican side,
·
Where votes were counted by machine, Romney and
Giuliani did better than by hand, all the other GOP candidates worse.
·
Where ballots were counted by hand, Romney and
Giuliani came out with worse percentages than by machine, all the other GOP
candidates better.
In a deeper look at all the Democrats, Clinton votes also come
out differently from votes for John Edwards, Michael Gravel, Dennis Kucinich,
and Bill Richardson.
The point is that all the anomalies
go in one direction:
·
With machine counting, Clinton
always came out a little better, and all the other candidates always came out a
little worse.
·
With hand counting, Clinton
always came out a little worse, and all the other Dems always came out a little
better.
This is a striking pattern for any
set of election results.
New Hampshire Secretary of State
William M. Gardner announced Friday in a press release that Democratic candidate Dennis
Kucinich and Republican candidate Albert Howard have requested a recount. Gardner
states that the recount will start Wednesday, January 16.
It would have been unconscionable
not to check. Nonprofit groups including Citizens
for Legitimate Government, Democracy
for New Hampshire and Election Defense Alliance have already noted that New
Hampshire results differed up and down the state in towns using the Diebold
Accuvote optical scan election technology from those that counted the ballots
by hand.
The statistics are disconcerting,
but they are very solid. Where votes were counted by the Diebold Accuvote
optical scan technology, Clinton
averaged 40 percent of the total; Edwards averaged 16.7 percent; Gravel 0.139
percent; Kucinich 1.227 percent; and Richardson
4.35 percent. Where votes were counted by hand, Clinton
averaged 34 percent; Edwards averaged 17.6 percent; Gravel 0.144 percent;
Kucinich 1.843 percent; and Richardson
5.56 percent.
The point here is not that hand
counting would have put Mike Gravel over the top. The point here, again, is
that all the anomalies go in one direction.
The same anomaly also emerges in the GOP results. On the Republican side, where votes were
tallied by the optical scanning machines, Romney averaged 33 percent of the
total and Giuliani 8.64 percent. Giuliani was not a factor in the New
Hampshire race. Where votes were tallied by hand,
Romney averaged 25.5 percent and Giuliani 8.14 percent.
Again, this factor sets Romney (and Giuliani) apart from all
the other Republicans. Where votes were counted by op-scan, Romney averaged 33
percent; Huckabee 10 percent; Hunter 0.492 percent; McCain 36 percent; Ron Paul
7.23 percent; and Thompson 1.171 percent. Where votes were counted by hand,
Romney averaged 25 percent; Huckabee 13 percent; Hunter 0.581 percent; McCain
39 percent; Ron Paul 9.22 percent; and Thompson 1.345 percent.
Had this been the pattern for all the votes on the GOP side,
headlines would have read that McCain beat Romney by almost 14 points, rather
than by 3 points. Also, Ron Paul would have beaten Giuliani by a point rather
than ranking just below him by a point. The standings of all the other
candidates would be unchanged.
On the Democratic side, a vote total in line with the hand
counting would have put Obama first in the New Hampshire
Democratic primary, and the (excessive) media furor over New
Hampshire would have reversed, although the primary
would still have been close. The rankings of the other Democrats would have
been unchanged.
But the exact magnitude of difference is not the main
concern here. The integrity of the election process is the concern.
Human error is a component in any
election. The U.S.
has a large body of election law, including a large body of law on election
recounts. For the right to vote to be protected, recounting—checking—has to be
protected, and American history includes hundreds of cases on the books, over
the years, involving election recounts.
Human error, however, is random.
When poor training, carelessness, and fatigue cause mistakes, the mistakes tend
to be sloppy. As statisticians
know, random error produces random results. Some mistakes benefit one side;
other mistakes benefit the other side.
When mistakes all go in one
direction, that is an anomaly itself.
Note: The hypothesis that the
difference between hand counting and machine counting might stem from different
demographics, has already been addressed. The vote rundown
provided here is broken down very thoroughly—scroll down—for larger and smaller
towns and cities in New Hampshire.
Smaller towns that used the machines still came out differently from precincts
using hand count; larger towns using machines still came out differently from
those using hand count.
It is also unclear what
demographic would produce pluses for Clinton, Romney and Giuliani against all
other candidates, Democrat and Republican.
The other hypothesis, that the
difference between Clinton and Obama is a factor of ‘race’, can also be
discounted, although some prominent media personalities are emphasizing it. Why
would supporters of Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson have (purportedly)
switched to Clinton at the last
minute, because of ‘race’? If race were truly the deciding factor on the
Democratic side, some of the other white male candidates surely would have
benefited.
Obviously race would not have separated Romney and Giuliani from the pack on the Republican side.
Transparency requires full publication of raw New
Hampshire exit polls, the most reliable form of
polling. Meanwhile, the vote tallies raise questions. Clinton and Obama, after
all, are not the only ones in the picture. The voters are supposed to be in the
picture, too.
Stumble It!