How ballets were handled in New Hampshire

[HeXploiT]

How ballets were handled in New Hampshire.
For the record I'm not saying anything nor am I making any accusations.
I am however somewhat aghast.
The most disturbing thing of all however is just how few Americans will probably be disturbed by this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1201555348

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=435_1201276426

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Perry404
How ballets were handled in New Hampshire.
For the record I'm not saying anything nor am I making any accusations.
I am however somewhat aghast.
The most disturbing thing of all however is just how few Americans will probably be disturbed by this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1201555348

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=435_1201276426

I heard that the New Hampshire Ballet does a good Nutcracker.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Perry404
How ballets were handled in New Hampshire.
For the record I'm not saying anything nor am I making any accusations.
I am however somewhat aghast.
The most disturbing thing of all however is just how few Americans will probably be disturbed by this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1201555348

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=435_1201276426

Thats a fucking joke. :roll:

Those seals are bullshit. :|

 

[StageLeft]

I have yet to read why the most visible democracy in the world cannot get its voting right. Why aren't there electronic voting machines and who needs to be tortured to death for the entire Diebold mess? I mean come on. I watched half of that vid, it looks like a farce. I'm sure that there is enough idiocy all around to mostly cancel itself out, though

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:tinfoil:

Yes, there are issues but it seems some of you will look for anything to feed your paranoia.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

I'm not surprised. This in combination with the "easily" hackable electronic Diebold machines are what we have to "protect" the integrity of our elections. Go back to sleep people, nothing to see here. All will be well in The Homeland. You have nothing to fear.

 

[NoStateofMind]

"Last night on the news the ballots were in a vault behind a key card entry, why are they now in ina room without key card entry?"

"Yes"

"Why the change in security?"

"Uh"

Yeah thats right, everything is fine. Another note to those too damned lazy to watch the video, those "seals" are no more than oversized post-it notes. Easily removable and re-adhered without damaging said "seal". Its a fucking farce.

 

[conehead433]

Yep, I saw that kid on Heroes fix an election.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Perry404
How ballets were handled in New Hampshire.
For the record I'm not saying anything nor am I making any accusations.
I am however somewhat aghast.
The most disturbing thing of all however is just how few Americans will probably be disturbed by this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1201555348

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=435_1201276426

You know, I didn't even need to read the author to know who posted this thread.

Just an FYI - Ron Paul still would have lost.

 

[xeemzor]

Regardless of who you support in this election, I think we can all agree that electoral proceedings must be overhauled significantly. There needs to be more security and redundancy in the system to ensure that it's not easily tampered with.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Perry404
How ballets were handled in New Hampshire.
For the record I'm not saying anything nor am I making any accusations.
I am however somewhat aghast.
The most disturbing thing of all however is just how few Americans will probably be disturbed by this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1201555348

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=435_1201276426

You know, I didn't even need to read the author to know who posted this thread.

Just an FYI - Ron Paul still would have lost.

Well no shit sherlock. I never suggested otherwise. Don't you look stupid.

 

[nageov3t]

Up a steep and very narrow stairway... :/

 

[LegendKiller]

Ballets? You got a tu-tu hiding somewhere? Where's your slippers perry? Are you one of those wiry looking...alternative lifestyle dudes? That explains a lot.

 

[bamacre]

This is quite disturbing. But it is not surprising. LOL at those apologists, i.e., CSG.

"Look for anything," good Lord, CSG. Like this is some minor detail they missed. Those ballot boxes were less secure than my grandmother's Windows 3.1 box with wireless internet access.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

Polls always have caveats. Polling doesn't take into account new or first time voters. Or the doubling or more of the turnout. Polls are done with data that is based off previous voter turnout. Huge swings in voter turnout has always caused polls to be inaccurate. Polls had Obama up 10-15% in SC, he won by 28%. Why? Turnout.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

Polls always have caveats. Polling doesn't take into account new or first time voters. Or the doubling or more of the turnout. Polls are done with data that is based off previous voter turnout. Huge swings in voter turnout has always caused polls to be inaccurate. Polls had Obama up 10-15% in SC, he won by 28%. Why? Turnout.

So I guess clinton got all the new voters?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

Polls always have caveats. Polling doesn't take into account new or first time voters. Or the doubling or more of the turnout. Polls are done with data that is based off previous voter turnout. Huge swings in voter turnout has always caused polls to be inaccurate. Polls had Obama up 10-15% in SC, he won by 28%. Why? Turnout.

So I guess clinton got all the new voters?

You fail at bolding. You forgot the second part of that.

NH had record turnout, overall and amongst women. Clinton won 46% of the female vote. Again it is extremely hard to have an accurate poll when voter turnout is double or more of what is expected. Thats the reason there werent many polls for NV. Previous turnout was 8,000. This years turnout was over 60,000 IIRC. Higher than expected turn out can make a poll with +/- 5% margin of error have a a +/- 10-15% margin of error. Polls have a built in estimate for voter turnout. When said estimate is horribly wrong, the polls tend to be off. NH and SC are two cases of this. Thats why polling has slowed down considerably. We are a week away from Super Tuesday, and over half the states do not have recent polls. Pollsters are shying away because they cannot accurately predict anything when they have no idea of what turnout will be like.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

Polls always have caveats. Polling doesn't take into account new or first time voters. Or the doubling or more of the turnout. Polls are done with data that is based off previous voter turnout. Huge swings in voter turnout has always caused polls to be inaccurate. Polls had Obama up 10-15% in SC, he won by 28%. Why? Turnout.

Good call, although I do disagree with some of your notions. I have worked quite a bit in political polling. Nevertheless, yeah, polls can be misleading based on some factors.

The OP still makes me wonder though. I mean, those ballot boxes were not secure, at all. Compare that to the security of your home PC, a business or even a corporate network. Secuity for a federal building, or even your local police station. Are our votes for president of the USA not as important? A lot of the lack of security seemed intentional, and that is what is disturbing.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

Polls always have caveats. Polling doesn't take into account new or first time voters. Or the doubling or more of the turnout. Polls are done with data that is based off previous voter turnout. Huge swings in voter turnout has always caused polls to be inaccurate. Polls had Obama up 10-15% in SC, he won by 28%. Why? Turnout.

So I guess clinton got all the new voters?

You fail at bolding. You forgot the second part of that.

NH had record turnout, overall and amongst women. Clinton won 46% of the female vote.

Nope didn't fail. I bolded what I wanted to. Regardless, I trust no voting where practices like in the OP exist.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ire_democratic_primary
"The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire?s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 37% to 30%."

Final results via the ballot boxes...
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

Polls always have caveats. Polling doesn't take into account new or first time voters. Or the doubling or more of the turnout. Polls are done with data that is based off previous voter turnout. Huge swings in voter turnout has always caused polls to be inaccurate. Polls had Obama up 10-15% in SC, he won by 28%. Why? Turnout.

So I guess clinton got all the new voters?

No, but she got back all the voters that temporarily punished her after Shaheen's comments in min December. When push came to shove, they came back to their first choice.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well, Hillary will still win and RP will not get nominated so what has changed?

I will cherish the day Hillary gets elected just for how much fun it will be to see Pabster squirm.

Unfortunantly it's not probable that i will be around to watch his fury.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
so what has changed?

I guess since no one has ever hacked into my computer, I should stop wasting money on securing it.

Because the results look ok, and that is questionable, that does not excuse the horror shown in the OP.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, Hillary will still win and RP will not get nominated so what has changed?

I will cherish the day Hillary gets elected just for how much fun it will be to see Pabster squirm.

Unfortunantly it's not probable that i will be around to watch his fury.

Why? Where you going? We're in this together.

 

[Siddhartha]

Did not someone here predict that Paul would win in NH?

McCain received around 70,000 more votes than Paul. How long would it have taken to alter 45,000 ballots?