8 votes

Was there a last minute 6% vote stuff for Romney?

In the end, After strongly going at Romney 35% Paul 25% all day long as the votes came in, in the end it seems some vote stuffing was in order as Romney came out on top at 40% to Paul’s 23%.

There is no way to trace the ballots in New Hampshire as this is a electronic voting machine state for the vast majority of its precincts.

Its oddly reminiscent to the weird secret vote totals pushing up both Romney and Santorum in Iowa.

At the end of the day, anytime a vote occurs without a clear ballot box that monitors can watch, and a public count from that box, the vote is pretty much suspect.

While we can’t prove cheating at this point, it seems clear that it is LIKELY they padded Romney’s vote by 6% to put him over the top in the lead position. Maybe Paul at 26% was getting just a bit too close for their liking. They have always had a mantra that winning by 40% was the goal for Romney.

Did they stuff votes for Romney?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

21% of the precincts still haven't reported in yet.

There might be more stuffing ahead.

I think John King said it was expected

because a number of townships in S.E. New Hampshire Rockingham County, a fairly Republican region right next to Massachusetts and within Boston's media sphere and therefore expected to go heavily for Romney. Now this could have been just setting up a vote stuff but there is a certain plausibility to it as well.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Still Only 77% Counted?

The spreadsheet over at the newspaper stopped at 77% last night and hasn't been updated, since.

I thought the numbers in New Castle were strange, but maybe one of the lower tier candidates had an office there.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

No Fraud here Folks

There was no Fraud. These numbers were expected to go up over time. The two major counties with half of the states population always report later in the evening They were the Southeastern counties on the Mass border where Mittens won 4 years ago.

If you look at Rockingham and Hillsborough counties, Romney got 46 and 41 percent respectively. Those two counties totaled 55 percent of the vote.

So I think your wasting time here. This is nothing more than a distraction.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

May not have been... they

May not have been... they came as close as they could get to being busted in 2008 - bet it scared the shit out of them.

Thanks. So The State GOP Controls The Sequence Of Reporting?...

Or is this phenomenon of late frontrunner surge explained by the longer amount of time required to tabulate the votes in the more populous precincts?

Or are both true to some degree. What I'm getting at is how much room is there for perception management in the (sequence of) reporting process?

I agree

The statistical argument that some people have tried to make would only work if the counties reported their results in random order. The smaller ones reported first (which were also counties that Romney did poorly in in 2008) and the larger ones where Romney was strongest.

I'm not defending machine counting, just pointing out that Romney's percentage increasing as the larger counties reported their results later than the smaller ones is exactly what you'd expect given the size of those counties and Romney's greater support in those counties.

BTW, the NH Sec of State wrote that hand counting vs. machine counting is decided by vote, not on a state-wide basis but in town meetings across the state. Has a decision about the counting procedure for next November been made? If not then here's an opportunity to get people out to those town meetings and make a real difference.

Even if the opportunity for changing that for this November has passed maybe the people of New Hampshire could be persuaded to repudiate machine counting in the state. It just takes getting people to care enough about it to turn out for the town meetings.

To: Goldstock--I disagree---ELECTION FRAUD could have happened

How do you know IN ALL YOUR WISDOM there was never any fraud? How do YOU know? Not.

No one knows, but I will tell you it is POSSIBLE, and knowing how much vitrole the GOP & the Federal Reserve elites have for Dr. Paul, they could have manipulated the electronic Diebold votes in the largest cities.

According to Professor Ed Felten, who demonstrated one day on CNBC a 60 second PRE-programmed vote flip card, it is very possible. You can google it. The demo is on YouTube. Whoever has access to those electronic machines for "servicing" (an outside tech company), can input a card the day before or the day of the election without any Election County Supervisor knowing what he's doing. They would alter the votes depending on what they could perceivably "get away with".

However, this is a waste of time right now, I agree, but ONLYL on that part!!

IN ALL MY WISDOM

In all my wisdom, I would say you need to take it back a notch. I was referring SPECIFICALLY to Romney's lead growing as the night went on. If you think the entire vote was rigged and there was rampant fraud that created a late night Romney surge, give me some evidence I can look at and I'll make an informed decision.

But when I see the ALL the polling (which I'm sure EVERY POLL is also completely rigged to whatever numbers the Federal Reserve wants the public to see) and their numbers are in the ballpark...I have to say, I'm OK with the RESULTS. And YES, I can also use ALL CAPS when I write a RESPONSE.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

NH The 'Live Free Or Die(bold) State'! Electronic Voting Is...

tailor made for election fraud, I absolutely agree, and apparently violates the state constitution's requirements for transparent tabulation of the vote.

Although one must suspect fraud to occur within the workings of a fraudulent vote counting procedure, can the late Romney surge in both Iowa and NH be attributed to the last minute release by the state GOP of results from Mitt heavy precincts? Does the state GOP control the sequence in which precinct results are released?

They wouldn't be so

They wouldn't be so accustomed to violating the state constitution if there weren't actual voter fraud going on....now or in the past... my main concern is that too many Americans don't seem very concerned about this issue overall. Of course we worry about it because we know it might directly effect us. But it boggles my mind why more Americans aren't outraged. Well, I do know why. But it just feels like such a slap in the face when Fox News plasters images of people having elections overseas...and patting themselves on their back for spreading democracy...and then this is what we get. They must think we are really stupid.

I brought this up last night, as well.

I agree. It was suspect.

What happened that made me first question everything was when JOHN KING, CNN, kept commenting and circling on the counties on the board, that Romney "could" get more votes in these counties (with the inference made that he would get a larger percentage of what he needed for perception). I heard this several times, and I wondered why they were dwelling on it, when it dawned on me once I saw Ron's 25% turn into 24% I really got suspicious. Normally, CNN does not care about those later counties. They've ALREADY called the election. So, why do this and do it now?? Another pundit commented he needed 40%.

So, YES, it would be easy for the GOP to massage those last numbers "for the sake of Rummy". I do think, earlier, they were afraid of LAWSUITS from the Paul campaign. So, a decision was made to tone down the perceived media "support" for Huntsman and to not pad the votes in New Hampshire.....until when it appeared Rummy wasn't getting "enough" votes to make him look good.

You know, I hate thinking this way, but working in Law Enforcement hasn't helped. I know how criminals and liars think! LOL

Isn't New Hampshire owned and operated by Democrats?

When did NH put a Republican in office? It's a Democrat State, like CA.

Yes

I started a thread about it last night after it started happening. I modified it as it went along.

These people are BAD.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

The goal in NH

was to elevate Huntsman as they did Santorum in Iowa. 40% for Romney, 20 and 20 for Paul and Huntsman with Huntsman preferably coming out on top. Fortunately for the Paul campaign Huntsman could not gain enough support to make it a credible scam. In the end the best that they could do was push Romney up to 40 and bring Dr. Paul down from the high 20's.

I was laying this strategy out for my son as the early vote totals were coming in. The poor kid was so excited at the early numbers, just wait I said, they will bump Romney. Imagine his surprise when he woke up this morning, lo and behold, the old man ain't so dumb after all.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

No doubt.

The Powers that be want Ron Paul to stay in the race by giving us just enough encouragement to hang on, so they can then either steal the nomination from Ron at the convention or, dare I say, give him too little time to mount a credible third party run. It won't work. We're seeing a different Ron Paul this morning, a Ron Paul only hinted at before. "Congress needs to develop a backbone". WOW! That's the "...I paid for this microphone" kind of comment that made Ronald Reagan not only the GOP frontrunner in 1980, it defined his presidency.

It does seem a little odd, no?

Early voters being so non-representative of final outcome in two states now, with later reporting tending to favor a specific candidate or two, seemingly in contradiction of the statistical likelihoods (do we have any resident statisticians who can weigh in?). Iowa, I can easily enough attribute to Benkie's promised swing voter blocs following orders from party leadership...cheating, no, but incredibly bad form and an actual perversion of the process - yes. New Hampshire...meh. I do not trust Diebold or the like, enough said.

I will say it's not leaving Paul in a bad position, but I strain to make myself believe it's all on the up-and-up.

It actually does not matter

Romney cannot get elected so we need to focus on getting the word out about Ron Paul...

Romney is unelectable.

"ROMNEY IS UNELECTABLE"

:-)

lol

LOVE IT~

I actually tought Romney got 36%

But to my disdain, I just checked it on the official results page and he is at 39% indeed. I guess I missed the last minute 'surge'.

bigmikedude's picture

bump

freed from spam filter