With 74.7% of the total vote counted (107,906 of 144,362), a total of 922 votes were changed (.85%). With 75.9% of Hillary’s vote recounted (45,912 of 60,503), a total of 305 votes changed for a net change of +25 votes. With 73.0% of Obama’s vote recounted (36,566 of 50,081), a total of 152 votes changed for a net change of +10 votes.
At this point, I don’t see a way – absent massive swings in very few districts – for this to change the result, and what isn’t apparent is the widespread shallow difference that would be suggested by the ‘Diebold Effect’ we talked about in the polls.
My email bulletin from Brad yesterday was headlined:
Yes, one precinct in Nashua (Row 80) did show a 7.4% swing for Hillary. But like the NY Times, outside the context of all the numbers, the number is meaningless.Note that in one district in Manchester, there was a 10% increase in votes for Hillary (row 64) – matched by a 10% increase for Obama. At this point, it’s an academically interesting project to analyze the errors and look at the outlier districts. But we’re talking about 130 votes out of 144,000.
That won’t stop the hysterics from claiming that the election was illegitimate or stolen. But it does explain why I was angry enough to use invective, and why I remain angry at people who devalue the hard work to do to secure elections.
I’ll do a longer post on why calm certainty matters soon.
Note: If someone has time to cross-reference the precincts in the spreadsheet with this list of precincts that used Diebold machines, it’d be fun…
Update: Added link to SoS results…
Update 2: After running through the two counties above, Kucinich has pulled the plug and isn’t going to fund any more counting. If more data is posted, I’ll add it to the table.