The Magic Math of the New Hampshire Primary…

« Want a pardon for your non-violent drug offense? | Home | FIX News has new poll to steer public opinion »

The Magic Math of the New Hampshire Primary…

By SlaveState | January 11, 2008

The totals are in for the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primary and to say that things are “suspicious” would be a massive understatement.

First off, there was an alarming number of “other” votes (votes for an unnamed candidate) unseen in previous primaries. In some cases an increase over the expected totals by 483% was seen. This is significant as “other” votes may represent a black hole where otherwise valid votes for non-establishment candidates were funneled.

Looking back at the 2004 primaries may give us a good idea of how many “other” votes we should see during such an election. In 2004, Bush was the incumbent so the Republican results aren’t really an ideal reference point as most Republicans weren’t willing to “compete” with their own party. This resulted in a small Republican field.

The Democrats however, give us a better picture of what is possibly “normal” in an open primary.

The data for 2004 New Hampshire primaries can be found here: http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2004_results/nh_primary/nh_primary_dem_town-by-town.html

We can see the Democrats cast a total of 255,277 votes with a total of 1268 “other” votes.

If we carry that out to the current overall total in 2008 of 287,580 votes we should expect to see approximately 1,428 “other” votes in New Hampshire in 2008. However, we see 4,627 which is a 324% increase over the expected total.

Taking a look at the Republicans using the same reference point above we should expect to see 1,187 “other” votes in the 2008 primaries and instead we see an amazing 5,733. This is an increase over the expected amount by an unbelievable 483%!

To further double check this we can go back and look at the 2000 Republican New Hampshire primary, another case where there was no incumbent. Based on those numbers (236,802 votes with 2001 “other”) we should expect to see 2019 votes on the Republican side for “other” in 2008. This is also a difference of a still remarkable 284% when we tally the 5,733 that actually occurred.

While the above numbers may indicate nothing but the natural ebb and flow of the election process, they are so notably different from what has been seen before that they warrant very close inspection.

In addition to the above anomalies, some precincts who were originally reporting that Congressman Ron Paul received zero votes later corrected their totals with double digit numbers. This is only after being confronted by confused voters who voted for Congressman Paul in precincts reporting he received no votes.

From a Ron Paul forum comes the following story:

“My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know??? “

“This town numbers are wrong wrong wrong on this map. I am from Sutton originally and my parents and one aunt all voted for Ron Paul today and Sutton says 0. So this is wrong. This is a town that had 20 people counting the ballots and I have no reason to believe that they cheated. Small town and I was born and raised there. The real numbers will come in by morning. The electronic machines in the big towns are the ones we have to worry about.”

Bev Harris, founder of vote watchdog organization Black Box Voting later contacted Jennifer Call, the head clerk of Sutton who admitted that there were in fact 31 votes for Paul omitted from the final report sheet, claiming human error. Most likely if there was foul play involved it had nothing to do with this head clerk. Harris cautioned on her website BlackBoxVoting.org that even when hand-counted ballots are tallied legitimately that the final summary sheet is often doctored before being presented by the media.

Greenville, which at one point was also showing zero votes for Paul, later updated their totals with 25 votes for the Texas congressman.

Were these instances both human error, and was there possible foul play at hand in the non-machine-counted ballots? We may never fully know.

Finally, the most glaring evidence that something is seriously wrong with the 2008 primary election process is the optical-scan machine totals when compared to the hand-counted totals. In particular, Clinton and Romney gained a deluge of votes via the optical-scan machines when compared to the hand-counts. Clinton was also the only Democratic candidate who benefited from the optical scan machines in net votes when compared to the hand count.

Full totals may be found at: www.checkthevotes.com (please note that below the term “expected totals” refers the anticipated amounts of votes as predicated by their percentages via hand-counting versus machine-counted or vice versa.)

From these sourced charts we can see that in the areas that used hand-counted ballots the results were very close to what some of the top polling organizations in the world had been predicting. However, the machine counts were surprisingly different to say the least.

Most notable may be the fact that overall Hillary Clinton bested Barack Obama only in those areas that counted their ballots by machine. Almost all major polls predicted Obama as the winner of the New Hampshire primary with some of them placing him with a finishing total of 42% compared to a low 20s Clinton.

At final count, every single Democratic candidate lost votes to the optical machines with the exception of Clinton who gained 15,584 votes over the expected machine totals. This allowed her to claim her “upset” victory against Obama with an astounding gain of 17.01% over the anticipated machine totals.

Additionally, in what may be the most disturbing anomaly of the Democratic primary Bruce O’dell of OpdedNews reports that Clinton’s and Obama’s totals share a remarkable relationship as outlined in the list below:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

Incredibly (or perhaps at this point, not so incredibly) the vote percentages for the machine-counted votes are a perfect mirror of the hand-counted totals except on the machines- Clinton wins.
This brings to mind the predicted “vote flipping” that election integrity advocates have warned us of for years now.

Such mysterious voting activity is not however limited to the Democratic side of things.

A quick look at the Republican totals (again thanks to www.checkthevotes.com) shows the only two candidates benefiting from the machines were also the ones who by many accounts are the most “establishment”. Rudy Giuliani gained just under half a percent of the vote total thanks to the machines while Romney gained an almost unfathomable 17,939 votes thanks to the machines- more than any other candidate. This represents an increase over the expected total by 23.85%.

Meanwhile the largest percentile victim of the entire night was Congressman Ron Paul who saw an expected 4,781 votes evaporate when calculated on the optical-scan machines. This total, had it proved correct would have been enough for him to have taken a solid fourth place. These votes would have tallied up to a jaw-dropping 26.15% of his final tally had they materialized for him.

Is it merely coincidence that the top loser of the night is also the candidate most often scorned and attacked by the mainstream media?

When all of the above is taken into account it seems that something very very foul may be afoot inside the New Hampshire electoral process. It may come as no surprise then to find that Black Box Voting reports that the actual man who ran the Diebold (now called “Premier Election Solutions”) ballot printing plant, John Elder, is a convicted felon. Additionally, New Hampshire’s voting machine programming executive Ken Hajjar, cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in narcotics distribution. Diebold seems to have no shortage of felons inside the election process.

Why then, is the mainstream media trying so hard to convince the public that rather than investigating all the evidence presented above we should instead question why the “polls were wrong”?

Perhaps, as Bruce O’dell surmises you are left with only one supposition outside of overt fraud, “many voters in New Hampshire lie to exit pollsters or are secret racists - and the ones who do so also vote on optical scan equipment.”