NO RECOUNT In New Hampshire

From Nancy Tobi, who's been through this before:

I am telling everyone who asks to beg Paul and others to NOT request a recount. I would beg you to urge everyone to STAND DOWN from this strategy. It is a trap. Use all your influence to inform the Paul and Kucinich campaigns, which are being targeted to carry this out, to please NOT pursue the recount this year. I can not stress enough how important it is they do NOT have a recount.

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. This is high stakes, no bullshit.

You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness.

And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours.

NO RECOUNT PLEASE

In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight. We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged, which we will never know, but if it was, don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH?

No. It is time to take control. We want accountability and change. We get this NOT from a recount, but from an investigation. We need questions asked and answered, and changes made so we have a clean election in NH in November.

The first question that needs to be asked is why did the NH Ballot Law Commission approve this firmware in March 2006 when the vendor himself testified it was defective and after citizens testified for more than four hours against the approval. That's the first question. Then we want to know, why did the State not respond to citizen requests for a rehearing after the California decertification. Then we want to know why was every citizen request for risk mitigation through procedural changes and legislation rebuffed by the state. Why did the Deputy Sec of State testify to kill two bills in two sessions that called for full software disclosure for voting equipment? Why did the State do nothing after hearing expert testimony from Harri Hursti and Bruce Odell about risk mitigation procedures and also about new software in use in Florida that is supposed to have fixed the known defects in the firmware approved last year. And finally, did the State have any prior knowledge that an executive in the firm programming NH elections is a convicted drug trafficker, and does the State think this is appropriate for a firm handling such sensitive state data as our votes.

Once those questions are asked, the very last question must be: What changes will the State implement to make November's election more secure so voters can believe in the results?
The NH Fair Elections Committee has left a paper and video trail a mile long, documenting all of our efforts over the past four years for remediation. It is time for change. The chickens have come home to roost in NH, and if our State does not like the shit they are dropping all over our elections, then the State needs to FINALLY step up and take dramatic action to send them away.

The days of the status quo are over. And recount is just part of the status quo. We want an honest and open FIRST COUNT, and that will happen only with structural change, not a recount.

Feel free to pass on with the strongest recommendations against the recount and urging for accountability, questions asked and answered, and a plan for real change.

Best, Nancy

Source: Mark Crispin Miller