Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Vote Fraud in New Hampshire Against Ron Paul?


There are disturbing rumblings coming out of New Hampshire that people voted for Ron Paul but their vote was not counted at all. These are becoming more than just unsubstantiated rumors, with one New Hampshire district admitting that votes for Ron Paul were not counted. The below article delves deeper into that particular case, speculating on whether a recount will be needed.


I think a recount is absolutely called for, if for no other reason than to put all future primaries and caucuses on notice that Ron Paul supporters will be watching very carefully and that the campaign is ready and willing to go to bat for a recount if need be. There is also suspicion that Hillary Clinton's supposed last minute win over Obama in New Hampshire was the result of vote fraud.


If we cannot count on fair, clean elections, then our political system is truly broken. What then? More to come - Stewart Rhodes


New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted

Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetWednesday, January 9, 2008

'The head clerk of the New Hampshire township of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.';
The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.
As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.
Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate?


Read the rest here

3 comments:

robin said...

Vote fraud does not surprise me in the least. I've never had any confidence in the Diebold machines.

Stewart Rhodes said...

Agreed. Me neither. Why should we have confidence in a system so easily manipulated?

hairy hobbit said...

Hey, the media said he didn't have a chance, why do we need to bother counting the votes for him?

In cuyahoga county Ohio we just got rid of the DIEbold electronic voting machines...but the (possibly?)bad news is we're going to DIEbold optical scan.

It's not a matter of if we have fraud, it's now a matter of how much.

sigh.

The good news is I'll be knocking over a camera man and screaming at the top of my lungs if we have no votes for Paul here. The words getting out.