MyDD :: NH Recount, Kucinich pays $27k

NH Recount, Kucinich pays $27k

by souvarine, Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:14:24 AM EST

The NH Secretary of State gave Republican Albert Howard and Dennis Kucinich estimates of the recount cost for their respective primaries yesterday. The cost is about $0.24 per ballot, so $57,600 for the Republican and $69,600 for the Democratic primary. The Ron Paul aligned Granny Warriors have been raising money here and here, they are within $15,000 of the $58k needed for the Republican recount. Kucinich is raising money here, which goes to a Kucinich ActBlue page. The ActBlue page does not appear to distinguish between donations for a recount and donations to Kucinich, so I have no way to tell how much of the $158k he has raised is for a recount. We will know this afternoon if either camp sends a check to NH to start the recount. Checks are due by 3pm EST.

Update: Kucinich came up with $27k

My suspicion has been that Kucinich's effort is about him and tainting Hillary Clinton's NH win more than any sincere concern about election integrity. The NH primary used paper ballots and there is no evidence of any fraud, and a sincere effort would hold up caucus systems for scrutiny as well. Rumors that CA SoS Debra Brown would observe a recount have not been confirmed. The fact that donations for the Democratic recount are not separate from donations to his campaign reinforce my suspicion that this was a stunt to muddy things more than an effort to increase anyone's confidence. I will be surprised and willing to reconsider should Kucinich actually send a check for $70k today. If not this will confirm my longer term impression of Kucinich as a self-serving ego-maniac who is deeply destructive to the progressive movement. Fortunately the media has so far given this effort the attention it deserves, so Kucinich's stunt may fail.

Update: Kucinich paid $27k for a recount starting in Manchester (the machine counted precincts where Clinton got most of her vote). I concede that he is not completely full of it.

Tags: new hampshire primary, dennis kucinich (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

Accepting recount contributions through your regular contribution page strikes me as a little shady.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

I may very well be, but if you support Kucinich's recount effort I gave you links where you can help prove me to be full of it.

by souvarine on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

I still don't understand why Kucinich voted against S-CHIP.

He's good at grandstanding, but when the rubber meets the road, where is he?

John McCain: Four More Years of Failure.

by dannybauder on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:35 AM EST

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

You are way off thinking Kucinich doesn't have a sincere concern about election integrity, and by extension that his supporters don't as well. I know it won't happen but the Democratic Party should pay for the recount. This isn't about the NH election no matter how hard some people try to make it out to be. It is about either getting to the bottom of the problem or restoring faith in the integrity of elections. There is ample evidence shown in the various documentaries that these machines are both hackable and unreliable. There will continue to be suspicions until we start to double check the results in elections involving them. To let the suspicions just fester is a way ultimately of suppressing the vote, of allowing people to think their vote doesn't really count, or get counted.

by Piuma on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:05:27 AM EST

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

You can't have these full recounts in every primary/caucus these machines are being used. That would be prohibitively expensive. There is no evidence of foul play here or any strange discrepancies, for that matter, so all you appear to be asking for is an automatic hand recount whereever these machines are used, just to make sure that the machine results match the hand-counted results, which is not feasible. Someone has to pay for what you are asking. Why should the Democratic party? And, where does it go? Same recount in California? New York? New Jersey? Illinois? Why would NH be different than CA?

If anyone thinks something was shady (i.e. tampered machines) then have them put their money where their mouth is (yes, that includes you, Piuma) and pay for the recount. If the recount is paid for, knock yourself out, people. To now ask the party (using our donations) to pay for this stuff is quite rich.

by georgep on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

What I do personally is really besides the point (though I have done what you suggest). I just posted a bit from Brad Blog where Kucinich's representative makes two very good points. One is considering the amount of money NH makes on its special position in the primary, the cost of a recount should almost be considered the cost of doing business, and if any candidate who lost with 3% or less had requested it, the total cost would be only $2,000. The reason for this recount is not to determine who won the election, since it probably won't change any delegate alignment, but to determine if peoples' votes were counted accurately. Your suggestion that there are no strange discrepancies here is not shared by various election experts who have converged on NH in the last few days (according to Brad Blog). You can't simply dismiss the fact that these machines have already been de-certified in certain states and there are legal challenges to those de-certifications. We need to get to the bottom of this and a timely recount now instead of waiting in a relatively small state certainly seems prudent instead of waiting for similar anomalies to pop up in larger states.

Obviously you think the integrity of the Vote is something the Democratic Party should not endorse. I vehemently disagree, and so do many, many Californians who elected our Secretary of State primarily over this issue. By staying out of this, the Party helps make this appear petty, fighting over who won and by how much. The issue is not really that and if we keep letting it be perceived as something only the "losers" are concerned with, then ultimately all of us become the losers.

by Piuma on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:41:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

George made a valid, substantive point here, which no one has addressed. I doubt any of us here have any objections to ensuring all votes are counted. And I'm sure we're all suspicious (at best) of voting machines.

However, the questioning of the NH results in particular seems like little more than sour grapes to me. I've read Brad's postings about this, and I find it whole unconvincing. If others disagree, I have no objection to a recount. They're entitled to donate to the cause. But that brings up George's point - if they are going to question the votes in this case, they should also question the votes in every case where these machines are used. If they don't, then it seems clear that what's really happening is a coordinated attempt to tarnish Hillary Clinton's win.

Are you suggesting that we have recounts in every state where the machines are used?

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton supporters should welcome (none / 0)

this recount. I suspect it will allay any concerns about the integrity of NH voting machines.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton supporters should welcome (none / 0)

I'd say, the more the merrier. But, why should the party have to pay for this? There is no evidence of any shenanigans, after all. So, if you pay, have at it. Knock yourself out. I assume we'll be dealing with this again for CA, NY and other places that use DIEBOLD's in the name of "making sure that the machines are working for the GE," right? Seems a bit silly, doesn't it?

by georgep on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount is needed for CONFIDENCE (none / 0)

But it does not need to be complete.

My guess is that between 2-5 % of randomly sampled precincts would be fine, with a stratification based on type of precinct (urban, suburban, rural), to ensure that this variable was not omitted, and possibly a second stratification variable for precinct size.

This would be very very good, because it would lend credence to the fall election.

by dataguy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount is needed for CONFIDENCE (none / 0)

I had that sort of idea as well and it seems like it would be a lot cheaper.

State law may sort of constrain the options for getting creative here, but you'd kind of think the Secretary of State would have some sort of inherent power to audit election results.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that a law like this (none / 0)

1) Only recount when diff < 2 % of votes or so

2) Precincts drawn by lot, 10 %

3) If these differ by a given amount, another 10 %

4) If those differ, do the whole shebang

5) If the election is reversed, SoS pays huge fine to DoJ

by dataguy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (2.00 / 1)

I am certain that there are people of goodwill who support Dennis Kucinich and his recount. I question Kucinich's motives and the motives of some people around him, but not those of his supporters generally.

I have a logical problem with the claim that this is about getting to the bottom of the problem or restoring faith in the integrity of elections. If the recount goes forward and shows once again, as the 2004 recount did, that the NH primary count was correct and reliable, how does that help the campaign against the Diebold machines which have real problems?

It seems to me that asking for a recount with so little evidence undermines confidence in the elections, and doing a recount that shows the Diebold count was correct weakens the case against Diebold. There are real problems with touch screen voting and with Diebold machines, people of good faith who want to fix those problems should pick battles they can win, not battles that show them to be wrong.

by souvarine on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

From Brad Blog:

On the Democratic side, surrogates for hand-count requester, Congressman Dennis Kucinich were said to be conferring with Election Integrity advocates and computer experts across the country as well, as they prepared to focus on the technological aspect of the recount.

As well, concerns were expressed about the private company, LHS Associates, which oversees programming, sales and service for all the Diebold voting machines used in New Hampshire, as well as most of the other states in New England. Concerns included the recently revealed criminal background of a senior LHS executive, Michael Hajjar, and other less-than-appropriate behavior by fellow officials at the company. The BRAD BLOG has reported on questions about LHS over the past year. We've previously detailed a number of those concerns, along with the criminal record of Hajjar, who pled guilty to narcotics trafficking in 1990...

The costs for the hand counts must be paid, in full, and up front, according to Gardner's interpretation of the state recount statute, according to letters given to the candidates today. (The full letter to Howard is at the end of this article.) Both a Kucinich representative, and Howard himself, questioned the Secretary of State's demand for full payment up front during conversations we had with them Monday evening. Kucinich must deliver a check for $69,600 by Tuesday afternoon. Howard is being charged a total $57,600. Each, at a cost of 24 cents per ballot.

"It's ludicrous," charged senior Kucinich campaign representative, David Bright. "New Hampshire has the privilege of being the first in the nation. This election brings in $3 billion dollars to the economy, so you'd think a measly 70k would be part of the cost of doing business," he told The BRAD BLOG in a phone interview on Monday night.

Both Bright and Kucinich's New Hampshire Attorney Manny Krasner, told us that their candidate would pay the fees up front, as required, though they contested Gardner's reading of the law which, they pointed out, only requires a written guarantee of payment.

"We've already signed documents to agree we're doing this," Bright said. "I think they ought to be doing this themselves anyway, on behalf of the voters and integrity."

"If Obama had done it, it would have been $2,000," Bright explained, referring to the state law which allows a candidate in a close election to pay just $2,000 total for a hand count. "So it's clearly an obstacle they're throwing in our way. I don't think it's good government," he added.

by Piuma on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

Kucinich's campaign comes across as awfully whiny here. Bottom line, if there aren't enough people concerned about the integrity of the election to raise this trifling amount of money, then maybe the doubts aren't all that serious after all.

Mind you, if the statute really requires only a written guarantee of payment, then I'm not clear on why they weren't allowed to simply post a bond. But either way, I don't think the Kucinich campaign makes a lot of friends by arguing that the taxpayers of New Hampshire ought to suck it up and pay for their recount request.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

As long as the act of asking for a recount is considered "whiny" then of course people will not be "concerned about the integrity of the election".

by Piuma on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

I do not consider the act of asking for a recount to be whiny. I consider the lament that the taxpayers of New Hampshire ought to be paying for the recount to be whiny.

I wish you did not feel such a need to mischaracterize my comments.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

My apologies. I misunderstood the heart of your complaint, so to go to it, we have a system where there is a dramatic cost difference for a recount depending on the person asking for it, something which hardly seems fair. The people who question the integrity of the vote count have a case, it is not coming from thin air and not coming from anything to do with being simply a sore loser. Why should there be such an enormous price difference between someone who loses by 3% and someone who loses by more than that?

by Piuma on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

I think the assumption is that when someone who narrowly lost requests a recount, the government has a strong interest in ensuring that the correct winner was named, but that they don't want to be roped into funding the recount in every single case just because of that.

You can certainly argue that the taxpayers should fund a recount for every single election but I think there's a reasonable argument for where the state has drawn the line here. I mean, they can't decide whether or not to foot the bill based on whether someone believes the BradBlog has made a good argument.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The requester should pay (none / 0)

Only then do we distinguish between frivolous and non-frivolous requests.

However, I also believe that when the recount shows that the results were wrong in the first place, by some agreed-upon margin, the payment should be refunded. In other words, if the recount changes things, the government should then pay up, and maybe pay a huge fine to the Justice Department.

by dataguy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

Kucinich needs to be raising money for himself- if he had spent the time raising money in Nevada, he wouldn't be needing a judge to force himself into the debate.

by reasonwarrior on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:51:41 AM EST

Kucinich is hurting (none / 0)

the progressive movement? Have you Hillaryites gone off the deep end.
Clinton slash and burn campaign is hurting the progressive movement - she posing as a progressive but as she proclaimed on the cover of Fortune Magazine she is corporate America's candidate.

Many many progressives will not vote for her in the GE.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST

Re: Kucinich is hurting (none / 0)

SHE proclaimed nothing on the cover of Fortune magazine.

Democrats like Clinton, want her to be our nominee. They are more reserved about Obama. That is a simple fact. If Obama can't change that dynamic (probably too late at this stage) then he can't win, because many of the nomination contests are DEMOCRATS-only, no Independents and Republicans allowed.

by georgep on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And the Democrats (none / 0)

will lose in November.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the Democrats (none / 0)

Well, that remains to be seen.

Hey, I am glad you did not try to defend your statement any more, given the reality that Obama does well with Independents and cross-over Republicans (aka NOT US) and not that well with Democrats (aka US.)

by georgep on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.