Vote Discrepancies In New York Democratic Primary

[Pabster]

Story here.

This looks pretty shady. Obama receiving 0 votes in heavily black districts? Harlem?

You would think they wouldn't be that stupid. If you're going to manipulate votes, you'd do it in districts where it wasn't so obvious.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting. From that read it looks like that district has had problems for awhile.

 

[woodie1]

"Did Clinton Rig The Vote?"

Surely you jest, sir.

 

[EagleKeeper]

/cue techs

Why would she want or need to?

 

[Thump553]

Pabster, your being a bit overdramatic and missing some important parts of the article. The xxx to zero votes were unofficial tallies, the final tallies are much more realistic. There were also districts that voted xxx to zero for Obama. Lawyers for both sides agree it is probably nothing sinister, just a matter of human error. To quote from the NYT article you linked:

City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times?s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results.

?It looked like a lot of the numbers were wrong, probably the result of human error,? said Marcus Cederqvist, who was named executive director of the Board of Elections last month. He said such discrepancies between the unofficial and final count rarely affected the raw vote outcome because ?they?re not usually that big.?

And further down in the same article:

Jerome A. Koenig, a former chief of staff to the State Assembly?s election law committee and a lawyer for the Obama campaign, suggested that some of the discrepancy resulted from the design of the ballot.

Candidates were listed from left to right in an order selected by drawing lots. Mrs. Clinton was first, followed by Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who in most election districts received zero votes, and by John Edwards, who got relatively few. Mr. Obama was fifth, just before Representative Dennis J. Kucinich.

Mr. Koenig said he seriously doubted that anything underhanded was at work because local politicians care more about elections that matter specifically to them.

?They steal votes for elections like Assembly District leader, where people have a personal stake,? he said.

A number of political leaders also scoffed at the possibility that local politicians, even if they considered it vital that Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton prevail in the primary, were capable of even trying to hijack such a contest.

Sorry, going to have to put this one in the tinfoil hat category.

It does further document, however, how incredbily lousy our electoral process is. You can be d*mn sure that 7-11 keeps track of its cash register receipts better, and much more efficiently, than we keep track of votes.

 

[nageov3t]

if Clinton is rigging the vote, she's doing a pretty bad job of it.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Dems started a hell of a precedent in 2000. Now dems even accuse eachother of rigging the vote. Every discrepancy is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Dems started a hell of a precedent in 2000. Now dems even accuse eachother of rigging the vote. Every discrepancy is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.

What part of this don't you understand?

Our voting system is not really protected. There is no reason to have confidence in the voting machines. It has been proven time and time again that they are easily subjected to vote manipulation. This has not been resolved. I repeat, people have no reason to have faith in these things.

I'm not making any specific claims about what elections were or weren't rigged, however, it is quite possible and if you think the motivation to do so isn't there then you obviously need to think a bit more about humanity.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
/cue techs

Why would she want or need to?

Unofficial means just that, unofficial.
Of course, tinfoil hat, anit-Hillary bashers will look for any excuse to slander her.
Especially when Hillary has stopped her slide and is gaining on Obama.
In fact, Wisconsin, perhaps the most liberal state after Vermont, and which has had socialist mayors and senators over they years is only leaning to Obama by 5 percent of the vote. That is very striking since Obama is the most liberal Senator in the country.

There are always discrepencies in the unofficial votes. Much ado about nothing.
I have all the confidence that the election in New York was essentially honest.
However, in a very close race it is important to get it right, and I hope there is a recount and the delegates fall where they may.

Regardless of what you hear on extreme right wing and left wing radio and websites, the election will come down to three very big states. Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
If Obama gets 53 percent of the vote in all three he's in. If Hilary gets 53 percent of the vote in all three, she's in.

As of today, Hillary is leading in all three.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Dems started a hell of a precedent in 2000. Now dems even accuse eachother of rigging the vote. Every discrepancy is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.

What part of this don't you understand?

Our voting system is not really protected. There is no reason to have confidence in the voting machines. It has been proven time and time again that they are easily subjected to vote manipulation. This has not been resolved. I repeat, people have no reason to have faith in these things.

I'm not making any specific claims about what elections were or weren't rigged, however, it is quite possible and if you think the motivation to do so isn't there then you obviously need to think a bit more about humanity.

What I find ironic is that due to the democrat initiated scramble to toss out the voting hardware that got Bush elected in 2000, we are left with voting machines that are MUCH more prone to tampering.

 

[palehorse]

This is ridiculous Pabster... If you just stick to the REAL reasons to bury Hillary, I don't think you'll be short on material. She's tanking with or without tinfoil and rigged votes... let's just enjoy it!

 

[Pabster]

palehorse74, I disagree. Voting is serious business. If there are discrepancies, they need to be investigated.

 

[Mail5398]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
/cue techs

Why would she want or need to?

As of today, Hillary is leading in all three.

Famous last words of the Cliinton campain, "We are leading in the polls."

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pabster
palehorse74, I disagree. Voting is serious business. If there are discrepancies, they need to be investigated.

fair enough, and they will be. But, if I were you I'd simply avoid worrying about it until there's actual proof of something nefarious. Otherwise, you'll just end up looking like the Paulbots and 9/11 Truthers... (aka morons). Even if you're right, it just won't go over that way until you have proof.

Until then, like I said, stick to posting real news articles about Hillary's sinking ship -- there's plenty of material!! Your big thread on Hillary is great, so stick to those types of FACTS, and enjoy the ride!

Don't worry, there are plenty of people out there focusing on the conspiracy stuff... if one of them gets lucky, I'm sure we'll all know about it soon enough!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Pabster
palehorse74, I disagree. Voting is serious business. If there are discrepancies, they need to be investigated.

Something tells me if I dig into past threads about Ron Paul votes being tampered with, I'll find you saying something about "tin foil hats".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Dems started a hell of a precedent in 2000. Now dems even accuse eachother of rigging the vote. Every discrepancy is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.

What part of this don't you understand?

Our voting system is not really protected. There is no reason to have confidence in the voting machines. It has been proven time and time again that they are easily subjected to vote manipulation. This has not been resolved. I repeat, people have no reason to have faith in these things.

I'm not making any specific claims about what elections were or weren't rigged, however, it is quite possible and if you think the motivation to do so isn't there then you obviously need to think a bit more about humanity.

What I find ironic is that due to the democrat initiated scramble to toss out the voting hardware that got Bush elected in 2000, we are left with voting machines that are MUCH more prone to tampering.

Explain please.