Here are some of the numbers posted with the hand recount of optical scanning machines in New Hampshire, as posted by the Secretary of State's office: ["Recount results"].
Again, like I have stated a bunch of times, these machines are not 100 percent accurate ... they are 99.9 percent accurate. And, that is pretty good in my mind.
So far, in Manchester's 12 Wards, here are vote gains for the candidates:
Clinton 40
McCain 24 [write in]
Obama 14
Edwards 11
Romney 11 [write in]
Richardson 8
Paul 7 [write in]
Giuliani 3 [write in]
Biden 2
Hunter 1 [write in]
Kucinich 1
Thompson 1 [write in]
Vote losses?
Dodd 6
Hewes 1
Hunter 1
Keifer 1
More than 20,300 votes were cast. And this is the result difference? Hmm. The machine count result was off by 6/1000th of 1 percent. That seems pretty accurate to me.
Update: I just realized something. If you take out the write-ins, which technically aren't Democrats, the shift is even less than that. It is about 3/1000th of 1 percent.
Again, like I have stated a bunch of times, these machines are not 100 percent accurate ... they are 99.9 percent accurate. And, that is pretty good in my mind.
So far, in Manchester's 12 Wards, here are vote gains for the candidates:
Clinton 40
McCain 24 [write in]
Obama 14
Edwards 11
Romney 11 [write in]
Richardson 8
Paul 7 [write in]
Giuliani 3 [write in]
Biden 2
Hunter 1 [write in]
Kucinich 1
Thompson 1 [write in]
Vote losses?
Dodd 6
Hewes 1
Hunter 1
Keifer 1
More than 20,300 votes were cast. And this is the result difference? Hmm. The machine count result was off by 6/1000th of 1 percent. That seems pretty accurate to me.
Update: I just realized something. If you take out the write-ins, which technically aren't Democrats, the shift is even less than that. It is about 3/1000th of 1 percent.
No comments:
Post a Comment