Method or the Map?
By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen
Liberal blogs are aflame with speculation that Diebold voting machines rigged a Granite State victory for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Vote tallies from the New Hampshire Secretary of State show that she won by 4.23 percentage points in the counties using Diebold optical scanners, but lost by 5.81 points in those where paper ballots are counted by hand. (These numbers use the most recent vote counts by township.)
Ergo, conspiracy.
Preliminary analysis from Edison/Mitofsky, however, indicates that the difference between the two types of precincts goes back at least two elections. As Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Media Research, wrote in an e-mail, "unless there has been hidden election fraud in New Hampshire for the last three presidential primaries the 'evidence' being used by these fraudsters probably does not hold up to any rigorous statistical analysis."
Moreover, attributing all the differences between these townships to their choice of vote-counting procedures misses other potentially important differences among voters (e.g., proportions independent, highly-educated).
UPDATE: The table below has been updated to reflect new numbers from the Secretary of State.
| Vote by type of voting equipment used: | ||
|---|---|---|
| Optical scanners | Paper ballots | |
| 2008 Clinton | 40.09 | 33.74 |
| 2008 Obama | 35.84 | 39.77 |
| 2008 Margin | Clinton +4.25 | Obama +6.03 |
| 2004 Kerry | 39.52 | 32.40 |
| 2004 Dean | 24.74 | 34.43 |
| 2004 Margin | Kerry +14.78 | Dean +2.03 |
| 2000 Gore | 50.35 | 45.80 |
| 2000 Bradley | 45.03 | 49.13 |
| 2000 Margin | Gore +5.31 | Bradley +3.33 |
Posted at 8:10 PM ET on Jan 10, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: kenzoan13 | January 16, 2008 3:20 PM
We've known all along that these machines can be hacked.
Posted by: picturenicholas | January 16, 2008 2:22 PM
Blockwest,
These Diebold voting machines are not the ATM-style machines. They work like a giant scantron (the same system Michigan uses, BTW...)
You fill in the circle for your candidate on a form with a black felt tipped pen. You then cover your ballot and walk over to the voting machine. You tear the cover off and insert the ballot face down into the voting machine.
There is a paper trail.
I think it should be done in a handful of precincts (particularly those in that close university town) just to help reinforce Americans confidence in the voting system.
Posted by: DonRitchie | January 15, 2008 3:57 PM
Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2000 fee to start the recount -- did Obama lose by less than 3% -- has anyone else seen a TOTAL cost yet?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/kucinich_calls_for_recount_in_1.html
Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 6:17 PM
Does anyone know exactly how much this recount will cost Mr. Kucinich?
Posted by: robert.isaac2 | January 13, 2008 1:52 PM
The diebold machines should have NO margin of error. Neither should hand counting of the ballots. Ballots should be checked and checked again to ensure that EVERY vote is counted accurately. Margin or error should only be an issue in polling and is a function of sample size and distribution. The election is a census of all eligible voters(in a perfect world where everyone comes out to do their civic duty) and is not effected by sample size.
Posted by: JAS25 | January 11, 2008 2:47 PM
This data makes no sense. What exactly is it that places Obama, Dean and Bradley in one group and Clinton, Kerry and Gore in another? It's not like you are comparing Democrats with Republicans and saying that certain precincts tend to vote more for one party than another.
If anything, your data suggests that perhaps the Diebold electronic counting machines have a margin of error that differs from hand-counted ballots. A consistent discrepancy does not have to involve a conspiracy.
Posted by: JacksonLanders | January 11, 2008 1:31 PM
There is nothing stopping all the Obama supporters and commenters from sending Dennis Kucinich $100 through PayPal. DK is the only guy who's demanded a recount. The NH election guy said: pay for it.
So, all these abused and outraged Obama supporters should send their money to Dennis 'cause he's fired up and ready to go. Challenge the count, that is.
Obama doesn't want to go near a recount! He's too much like Hillary in not wanting to rock the boat. Hell, let's rock the vote!
America. It's the land of put up or shut up. So Obama guys, what are you waiting for? It's Hillary's election unless you do more than whine.
Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon PA
Posted by: HLBeckPE | January 11, 2008 1:07 PM
The last poll in NH showing the Obama "bounce" was held on Sunday 1/6, two days before the primary and only 3/5 of the way through the campaign in NH and well before the strategically placed "crying in the diner" scene. I think the "come-back" is real and not surprising at all. While I don't think Hilary is a very good actor, obviously some folks from NH do!
Posted by: JAS25 | January 11, 2008 12:25 PM
How does one recount by hand if the results were altered through a hacked machine? The hack remains, so the results remain the same. Is there a way to determine if a hack occurred?
Posted by: blockwest | January 11, 2008 11:17 AM
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has also cried foul play; he's called for a hand recount. Not even Kucinich thinks he may have won; but Obama may have...
Under NH law (I think) Kucinich can be awarded a hand recount, if he's willing to pay the financial costs of conducting it.
Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | January 11, 2008 10:48 AM
Note that in those last three election cycles, the candidate with New Hampshire's Democratic "establishment" behind him/her won the optical votes.
Posted by: PATMAN104 | January 11, 2008 9:32 AM
If there are any concerns that the primary was rigged then it is our duty as a free and just country to conduct a recount. While I dont believe every conspiracy theory, we owe it to ourselves to explore every scenario. There is aleady a debate about race and gender. . . .why not fraud? This is America and there is nothing more American then questioning the status quo.
Posted by: dsansone | January 11, 2008 8:49 AM
If there are any concerns that the primary was rigged then it is our duty as a free and just country to conduct a recount. While I dont believe every conspiracy theory, we owe it to ourselves to explore every scenario. There is aleady a debate about race and gender. . . .why not fraud? This is America and there is nothing more American then questioning the status quo.
Posted by: dsansone | January 11, 2008 8:49 AM
That dirty word "Liberal" appears every time the Repubs get beat. Now it is coming from what has been described as "The Loony Left" When will these Fools learn??
Posted by: lylepink | January 11, 2008 7:47 AM
Is it really the policy of the Washington Post to report rumors? As this has become a pattern, I guess it is.
Posted by: zukermand | January 11, 2008 6:20 AM
There's a Freudian slip in my above post, I meant "hostility towards African-American candidates" not voters
Posted by: pmohant1 | January 10, 2008 10:06 PM
at the risk of pointing people away from the washington post, there is a very reasonable article in the nytimes called "getting it wrong" that explains why there might have been such a discrepancy between the pre-primary polls and the results. it argues that working-class white voters are less likely than middle and upper-class white voters to answer telephone surveys, which tends to skew surveys and miss latent hostility from working class white voters towards African-American voters. Further, this has been documented in many elections besides the recent one. Ergo no evidence of conspiracy. I do agree that we should do everything we can to get rid of papertrail-less Diebold machines but that also doesn't mean that every election that doesn't turn out like the polls predict is fraudulent.
Posted by: pmohant1 | January 10, 2008 9:58 PM
Read the prior thread: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/what_if_the_polls_were_right.html#comments
Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2008 8:49 PM
Well, maybe there WAS hidden election fraud in New Hampshire going all the way back to the start of this Bush-Clinton dynasty?! Obama has to file a formal recount petition tomorrow or it will be too late -- this is a small test as to whether he will stand up like a man and fight or just roll over like Gore did in 2000 -- Fired Up and Ready to Go!!!
Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2008 8:28 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
There's a lot of speculation and misinformation about this. I'd recommend people educate themselves.
As far as there being no margin of error in counting ballots: there is always the chance of an error, which is why most states allow for recounts. In some cases, there is a higher margin of error in recounting the handcounts than in tabulators.
Also, don't overlook the socioeconomic factor; most communities that have the need for and the means to buy and maintain tabulators are going to have different patterns than towns that still hand count.