|
These from my emails on the NH recount progress:<br><br>email 1 on thursday<br>___________________________________________<br>Hi, this is Kevin Zeese, I'm here in Concord, New Hampshire with Rob Cirincione and Virginia Rodino and we're here for the New Hampshire recount of the Nader/Kerry/Bush race and it's just getting under way. There's a room full of people here. There's a lot of positive energy in the room. We've brought together more than twice the number of volunteers we need to manage the recount, to observe and make sure that the recount is done accurately. People feel very confident that we're going to make our democracy better and stronger. The media has started covering this. We've seen a lot of reports here in New Hampshire and even The Nation magazine, on their website, has an article about this New Hampshire recount. The Boston Globe was here, so I'm sure we'll see some coverage of this no matter how it turns out.<br><br>I want to make it clear what the goal is in this recount. We're not here trying to overturn the election. We're doing basic democracy activism. We're trying to protect our democracy. This is more like an audit of the vote. We're seeking a recount in wards in New Hampshire where there have been mathematical anomalies, where people expected more votes for Kerry than Bush, and Bush got anywhere from 5 to 15% more votes than expected. When we look at those numbers it turns out that most of those anomalies occurred in wards where the vote was counted on the Diebold AccuVote Machine, in fact 78% of those unusual votes were on those machines. This is the first audit in a Presidential Election of an electronic voting count system so it's an historic moment. Either way it turns out it will be good for our democracy. If it turns out that there was no problem, it will show that these machines were reliable in this race, it will show that there's a positive role for audits and it will make the Democrats question further why they keep losing support-and I think there's good reason they're losing support. If it turns out there's a problem, well then we have a major national story involving electronic voting and raising questions that really need to be evaluated, as more and more of the country goes to electronic vote count.<br><br>So, we're here, fighting for democracy and would love to have your support and best wishes for our success in it. Please visit our website [votenader.org] to get actively involved. This will be the first stage of the recount so we'll need more help as this goes forward. So, send your money, or call if you live in New Hampshire and would like to volunteer.<br><br>Thanks a lot.<br><br>Kevin Zeese<br>Campaign Spokesperson<br>(202) 265-4000<br><br>-----------------------------------------------------<br>email 2 late last night<br>_____________________________________<br>Dear Supporter,<br><br>A team of Nader supporters and voting rights activists participated in the first stage of our recount in New Hampshire on Thursday, November 18, 2004. The recount of the remaining wards/towns will continue on<br>Monday, November 29 and should take two days to complete.<br><br>Nader/Camejo initiated the recount because votes in New Hampshire cities along the Massachusetts border showed a higher level of support for Bush than expected when comparing the votes for Gore in 2000 vs. the votes for Kerry in 2004. Thus far, after the completion of only three wards, we have not found any major vote count inconsistencies between the electronic vote count and the hand-paper ballot recount.<br><br>The anomalies will either be explained by the machines counting the votes wrong; or the Democrats doing much more poorly than expected. Either way it will be good for voters to know.<br><br>Kevin Zeese<br>Nader/Camejo 2004<br><br>
_________________ "Winning the war on jihadist extremism is the Democratic Party's first priority this year and every year until the danger recedes" Open letter from the (Clintonite) Democratic Leadershp Council
|