Citing the reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Clinton (which I posted about earlier this week), Kucinich is calling for a recount of New Hampshire votes.
Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in *his* vote total, but wants assurance that “100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted.”
Of course, it probably won’t happen — NH law requires anybody who lost by more than 3% to pay the full costs of a recount, and Kucinich has only sent out $2K (the amount reserved for people who lost by 3% or less). I suppose Obama could ask for the recount, but it’s probably better for him to just move forward with what momentum he has, and not give the media a “sore loser” meme to play with.
So, all in all, it’s only a gesture…..but I still think it’s an important gesture.
I love Kucinich. *wistful sigh*
What she said. He’s the guy I actually want for president; I just know it’s never going to happen.
Why is it an important gesture? Seems like a waste of time (and money) to me. Clinton had huge leads in New Hampshire polling prior to Iowa and Obama’s “big mo” from the caucus win was wildly over-inflated by a media pushing its decided-upon narrative.
Also, Hillary cried. Or something.
It’s something which hopefully will draw attention to the fact that we’re still using error-prone and unsecure Diebold Accuvote machines. I think that’s worth pointing out.
It would be better if someone higher-profile was making a big deal about it, but I’ll take what I can get at this point. :)
“I mean, I don’t pay attention to every little law.”
~ Ken Hajjar, LHS Marketing and Sales Director, childhood friend of John Silvestro, discussing voting procedures
http://gnn.tv/headlines/16409/Exec_at_NH_s_Diebold_Vote_Counting_Firm_Convicted_of_Narcotics_Trafficking
I fear we now live in a techocracy. He (or she) with the best technology manipulation, wins.
It’s good to see *someone* in the race standing up for the old “one person one accurate vote” theory.