Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Why Re-count Corruption?

Submitted by jaradjohnson on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 21:19
in
0 votes

We all know that the elections, in some states, are rigged. There are people right now on trial or serving time for their parts of rigging the 2004 election.

That being said, why are we trying so hard for this recount in New Hampshire? You have to realize that a re-count most likely will not change the results as people are smart enough to rig the election not just lie about it. Just like in 2004 and 2000, there were re-counts and they came up with nothing even though in reality we have proof and admissions that those were both rigged in Florida.

So, INSTEAD OF WASTING TIME and effort on this, we simply need to be more involved in the voting process from now on. Make sure we have people watching the votes counted, we get accurate exit polls, get names numbers and other information from those who vote for Ron.

Shit, why not just have a booth outside for everyone that voted for Ron to stop and sign at. This would give us a pretty accurate number on our own that we could use against the numbers submitted by the government.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NH LAW

Submitted by DarkReign on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 21:45.

NH Law states that there MUST be a paper trail. So the recount will be valid.

NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE NANCY TOBI

Submitted by atrickpay on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 21:39.

thinks they might have covered their tracks too well:


"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."

"A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited."

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=...

Bev Harris had this to say:

Submitted by atrickpay on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 21:42.

"The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit."
Link

The Secret Ballot

Submitted by sovereign one on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 21:28.

The reason many people would not want their names on a list of people who voted for Ron Paul is that the ballot is supposed to be secret. If fascism comes to this country, how convenient such lists would be to round up possible dissenters. This may sound paranoid to some, but please try to keep an open mind. As fascism came to Germany, the incremental steps were not noticed at the time.

I'm in favor of having a table where people can have their VOTE counted, anonymously. I realize that this isn't any notarizable document, but at least it would be a raw number.

It would be a good backup to vote watching on the inside.

Fascism is Here

Submitted by jaradjohnson on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 21:39.

Yes, you're right, asking for a name and number is a bit much. You would probably want to leave it up to an optional anonymous listing is they wanted to participate.

We just need something that can tell us either "Whoa, this is messed up" or "Oh, I guess Ron really didn't do that well."

Just to put us all at rest or really start the uprising that validated by something other than being pissed.