6 Ways the New Hampshire GOP Caucus Could Be Rigged and What You Can Do About It

Posted: January 9, 2012 in NEWS, POLITICS
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BlackBoxVoting.org
By Bev Harris
January 9, 2011

See below for details in this article:

SIX TRAP DOORS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION PROCESS

1. Removed safeguards for its same-day registration system.
2. Ignores the law on ballot-stuffing safeguards
3. Breaks the chain of custody
4. Conceals vote-counting from the public, in violation of Article 32 of its own Constitution
5. Removed candidate recount rights (2009)
6. Made it illegal for public citizens or members of the press to examine the ballots after the election is over (2003)

TWO THINGS YOU CAN DO

1. Get involved with Protect the Count NH
2. Monitor the trap doors

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT NEW HAMPSHIRE’S FIRST-IN-NATION PRIMARY?

Like the Iowa caucus system, it forces candidates to answer real questions from actual people. Political strategists like their candidates to plan their media (setting up media ops that are nothing short of laughable; placing their candidates in cornfields, in tanks, on factory assembly lines, donning catcher’s mitts and plaid shirts and baseball caps.) Unscripted moments are forced on candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, where locals won’t vote-ya if you hide behind photo ops.

WHAT’S BAD ABOUT NEW HAMPSHIRE’S FIRST-IN-NATION PRIMARY?

Unlike the impressively transparent public process in Iowa this year (where the public could spot errors or malfeasance so well that mistakes actually saw the light of day), New Hampshire is currently the Decepticon of transparent elections. For each transparent election procedure, they’ve built a trap door.

ELECTION CONTROLS

If you control who or what gets on the ballot, you control the outcome. This is the arena for ballot access fights. If you dominate public persuasion, you can (usually) control the outcome. This is the arena where campaign finance is fought. If you draw your own playing field, you control regional outcomes. This is the arena where redistricting take place. All this happens before the election. Now we move to control points for the voting process itself:

1. WHO CAN VOTE: Where voter list stuffing and purging play out;
2. WHO DID VOTE: The ringside seat for ballot-stuffing;
3. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Magician’s territory: When real ballots leave public view, substitutes may appear;
4. THE COUNT: Voting machine program and the tally process.

HERE ARE NEW HAMPSHIRE’S TRAP DOORS:

TRAP DOOR #1 – (WHO CAN VOTE): Democrats have been clamoring for same-day registration, and we saw Republicans take advantage of it in Iowa’s 2012 Caucus. A keen idea, but not when you remove its safeguards.

The safeguard for same-day registration is the ability for any person to see and authenticate same-day registration applications. New Hampshire allows same-day registration, but excludes the registration applications from public inspection. What you’re left with is a checklist (New Hampshire’s name for a poll list) which contains a list of names appended to it by a poll worker.

In 2008, the presidential primary checklist for a northern New Hampshire town called Woodstock was spotted on the floor of a white cargo van by an alert citizen.

This van was speeding around southern New Hampshire, driven by file clerks Peter “Hoppy” Falzone and Butch Dubois. Ballot pickup schedules showed that they hadn’t been to Woodstock. Appended to the Woodstock checklist were a motley list of hand-written names, lacking addresses, purporting to be same day registrants.

Susan Pynchon, the citizen who spotted the checklist and later examined it, asked to examine the Election Day registration forms that must accompany same-day registrants. But in New Hampshire, that’s against the law.

No member of the public or the media can examine any of the documents which authenticate same-day registrants. No one knows if the names appended to the checklist are real or copied from a phone book during lulls in voting.

TRAP DOOR #2 – (WHO DID VOTE): A telltale sign for ballot box stuffing is when votes exceed voters. Here are voter/vote totals from Swanzey in New Hampshire’s 2008 presidential primary:

1,591 votes – 1,333 voters = 258 impossible Democratic votes
1,092 votes – 951 voters = 141 impossible Republican votes

Documentation: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/157/Swanzey-72828.pdf

The total number of impossible votes in Swanzey alone were 258 + 141 = 399

The “Swanzey Stuffing” does have a positive side: At least Swanzey reported their impossible numbers promptly to the Secretary of State. A citizen caught it, and (one would hope), the secretary of state had an opportunity to investigate the incident. But they didn’t.

In 2010, though it is required by law to report to the secretary of state the number of votes and voters, towns did not report it. An alert public citizen, Deborah Sumner, noticed the absence of this required ballot-stuffing safeguard and brought it to the attention of the secretary of state, the Ballot Law Commission, the attorney general, and the media. Though the attorney general did issue a written opinion confirming that the report is required by law, no one did anything about it.

Here is the law: RSA 659:73 (f) and (g). Subsection (f) is the number of voters who show up at the polls; subsection(g) is the number who vote absentee; add the two together and you know how many warm bodies actually cast a vote. Compare that to the number of votes and if there are more votes than voters, someone stuffed the ballot box (or can’t prove they didn’t).

In 2012, since nothing was done about 2008′s impossible numbers, and nothing was done about 2010′s willful noncompliance with RSA 659:73, we have every reason to believe that this trap door is still ready and waiting for anyone who wants to exploit it.

TRAP DOOR #3 – (CHAIN OF CUSTODY): It seems like every time New Hampshire has a major election, someone is ducking in and out of its computer-counted voting locations switching out memory cards. Sometimes the ballots are switched out too, citing pens that the machines thought were invisible. And in New Hampshire’s 2008 presidential primary recount, ballots from one location (Manchester Ward 5) arrived in the sealed, signed ballot box for Manchester Ward 6, and vice versa. Ballots arrived in boxes that were open; in Christmas tree ornament boxes, and battered corrugated brown with slits in the side.

So, you might think, New Hampshire would clean up its act. They would no longer swap memory cards in the middle of Election Day (the votes reside on memory cards. Exchanging a memory card midday is akin to having someone bring in a different ballot box from who-knows-where and swap it out in the middle of the election.)

There is no reason to believe we won’t see memory card swaps, and even exchanges of entire voting machines, in 2012. No one at the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office seems concerned, claiming that the towns are responsible for their own elections.

CLICK FOR FULL STORY

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Fantastic goods from you, man. Ive study your stuff ahead of and youre just as well amazing. I enjoy what youve got right here, adore what youre stating and the way you say it. You make it entertaining and you even now manage to help keep it wise. I cant wait to go through additional from you. That is really an incredible weblog.

  2. […] 6 Ways the New Hampshire GOP Caucus Could Be Rigged and What You Can Do About It (truthsupport.wordpress.com) […]

  3. […] 6 Ways the New Hampshire GOP Caucus Could Be Rigged and What You Can Do About It (truthsupport.wordpress.com) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s