Kucinich Requests Vote Recount – Theory of Vote Irregularities Crosses into Real Life

January 12, 2008

As this post alerted me to, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (“wait, who?”) – who won about 2% of the vote in New Hampshire (“oh, one of those candidates) – is requesting a recount of the votes cast in the New Hampshire primary. Kucinich will have to pay for it: the cost is $2,000 if you have lost by a margin of 3% or less, otherwise you must cover the full cost of the recount. In a move which I don’t quite understand, Kucinich has sent off the $2,000 fee – that’s for candidates who lose by three percent or less, not for those who receive three percent or less of the vote. Unless it’s an obligatory down payment. In any case, Kucinich has said that he is not “making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf”.

Anyway, Kucinich can sort out the money himself. I do think it is a good idea to call this recount – obviously the only person who has anything to gain from it is Obama, who lost by a slim margin of 2%. It wouldn’t look good on Obama to call for a recount himself, (sore loser anyone?) so it’s probably best for Kucinich to do it. The Deputy Secretary of State, David Scanlan, says that he has “every confidence” that the results are accurate; but who cares, it’s Hillary who has the most to lose here. (Apparently those voting machines that favoured her can be hacked within ten minutes).

You have to admire Kucinich for this – I never thought that online allegations of election fraud would cross the boundary into real life action.

– Nish

Election Fraud in New Hampshire: Significant Evidence that Hillary shouldn’t have Won

January 10, 2008

    Firstly, I’d like to thank Jason for bringing this issue to my attention.

This is the U.S.A right? The country that invades countries and funds foreign governments in the name of ‘promoting democracy’ right? (Or not). Maybe America’s taking tips from Kenya.

Let’s skip to the point. In the New Hampshire primary, some votes were counted by hand and some were counted with the aid of a machine. You’d expect the percentage of votes won by each candidate to be roughly the same in the hand-counted votes and the machine-counted votes right? Wrong.

In the hand-counted votes, (which are harder to rig) Clinton won 34.7% whereas Obama won 38.8% – he won. However, in the machine-counted votes Clinton won 40.1% and Obama won 35.8%. Suspicious no? The machine-counted votes gave Hillary 5% more and Obama 3% less. I find it hard to believe that there should be such significant differences with both candidates – especially if both difference benefit the candidate favoured by the establishment. Here is a page with a whole bunch of figured detailing the differences between machine and hand counted cotes.

Of-course, just like Kenya, it’s not like anything will happen. After all, it’s America – land of freedom and democracy. How could the elections have been rigged?

– Nishant

Obama and McCain lead in first two New Hampshire towns

January 8, 2008

As Jason reports, Obama has come out with a clear lead in the first two towns in New Hampshire to report their results. He’s beaten Clinton by 9 votes to 3 in one, and Edwards by 7 votes to 2 in the other. On the Republican side, McCain has taken the towns, though by a smaller margin, beating Romney by 4 votes to 2 in the first town. It’s even closer in the second town, where he just won by 6 votes to Huckabee’s 5 – and Ron Paul in third place with 4 votes! Hopefully a good sign of things to come.

– Nish

So Hillary’s sad about falling behind – big deal.

January 8, 2008

    The title might sound a bit rough, but seriously, what does it matter that Hillary shed some tears when asked a question by a voter in New Hampshire? (Unless you’re living under a rock, you should know that New Hampshire has its primaries today – here’s a page that updates at intervals). Does her crying in front of a voter provide any information about her political policies? No. Does it give any reason that we should vote for her? No. Heck, it doesn’t even attack her opponents, (something that Hillary is not averse to doing when behind in polls). Therefore, whether her tears were sincere or not, the only purpose they served was to attempt to emotionally influence voters – a pretty hard task when you consider the public view of her as a cold and hard person – JT’s implication that Clinton is a robot created in the 1960s pretty much hits the spot.

If she wants to pull ahead in the polls, maybe she should stop resorting to underhanded tactics; I don’t care if those tears were sincere, a president should have enough control to hold back tears in public. Instead, focusing on what she’s doing wrong would be a good step – although frankly, I’m in full support of her blundering away and handing the nomination to Obama or Edwards.

– Nish

Kibaki Calls for ‘Peace’ – that is, for Acceptance of Blatant Election Fraud

January 4, 2008

As can be read here, Kibaki has taken an even more audacious step (as if inventing voters to steal the worst-rigged election ever wasn’t bad enough) and called for peace – specifically, for Kenyans to ‘remain calm’. He has also ruled out talks with Odinga until Kenya is ‘calm’.

Let’s take a look at this statement. What would remaining calm mean here? Remaining calm would mean accepting Kibaki’s blatant election fraud. Remaining calm would mean giving up the fight for democratic rights. Remaining calm would mean forgetting everything that democracy means. Fitting that Kibaki will not hold talks with Odinga until Kenya is calm, since both actions would indicate an acceptance of the election fraud.

So let there be no calm until Odinga, the rightful president of Kenya, is sworn in. When democracy fails, as it has, the only way to engage in the pursuit of justice is through force.

Oh yes, and even more audacious (if that’s possible) is Kibaki’s claim in the same article that the opposition is ‘fomenting violence’ in Kenya. There is only ongoing violence in Kenya because of Kibaki’s blatant fraud. So Kibaki, you are wrong on all counts – it is you who has started the violence in Kenya.

And, through your childish stubborness, it is also you who may lead to the continuation of violence in Kenya. This excellent blog post shows how blocking Thursday’s, (and Friday’s) opposition rally will only lead to greater tensions. How can there be dialogue and peace when Kibaki wont even allow Odinga’s support to gather in a peaceful manner to relieve their tensions? There cannot be. Kibaki, you are a monster blinded by your own power, and you’re sucking the life out of Kenya.

Save Kenya: tell Kibaki to step down now.

– Nishant

Huckabee Gets Away with Winning Iowa; Ron Paul Strong Fifth

January 4, 2008

Again, most of you probably know that Huckabee won the Iowa Republican Caucus. Yes, I almost broke my TV as well when I heard. With 34% of the votes, he coasted through, beating Romney who came second with 25%. This post has the results for every candidate. However, as Bill Scher argues, Huckabee will still have to work in the primaries, considering that the Republicans might unite around a single candidate to keep him out. (Do they really want a candidate who may be committed to converting Jews to Christianity?)

However, Ron Paul broke into the double digits with 10% of the vote – 11,598 votes – which gives him two potential candidates. (Perhaps significantly, this is more than Giulani’s 4%). Slightly surprising, considering that these two polls put him at 7.1% and 6% respectively. See, young people without conventional home phones can make a difference. I suspect he would have gotten even more votes if independents hadn’t joined up with Obama in such force. Indeed, as this post points out, Ron Paul was the winner with independent voters.

So Ron Paul supporters should be optimistic – as they are. He scored two delegates in a super-religious state – New Hampshire’s views are much closer to his own. He has clearly distinguished himself from second-tier candidates.

Well, onwards to New Hampshire Wyoming, with its January 5th convention – and then New Hampshire.

– Nishant

Obama Carries Iowa Democratic Caucus; Worldwide Celebrations as Hillary Comes Third

January 4, 2008

As most of you have probably heard by now, Obama won the Iowan Democratic Caucuses with 37.58% of the votes. This I expected, but the next bit of news surprised be: Edwards came second with 29.75%, inching out Clinton, who had 29.47%. That’s right, Clinton came last – party time! (This post has results for every candidate).

However, although this might make for good media fodder, Obama wont actually get too many more national delegates from Iowa. Due to the way in which they’re allocated, Obama will only claim 16 potential delegates from Iowa – and Hillary will claim 15, one more than Edward’s 14. Boo. (No other Democratic candidate got enough votes to claim national delegates). That’s right, an almost 8% winning margin in votes will translate to only one additional delegate for Obama compared to Clinton. Obama’s victory is something to celebrate, but the primaries are far from won, and it will take more hard work to keep Hillary out.

The record turnout is probably what clinched the victory for Obama – 220,588 voters participated this year, compared to 2004’s 124,000. A large percentage of the voters were people under 30 and independent voters, two groups that mainly supported Obama. And women, the support of which Clinton was banking on, split the vote between Clinton and Obama. Maybe they know that a woman running for president isn’t as big a deal as the media make it out to be.

Oh, and finally, here’s a story that is being swamped by the Iowa Caucus results – Democrats in Minnesota have captured a vacated Republican seat. A good day for the Democrats.

Onwards to New Hampshire!