Boston Globe, Associated Press
Complicit in New Hampshire Vote Fraud?

It may seem a bit provocative to start this article out with a question that already assumes the New Hampshire primary vote was fraudulent, but the evidence that something was indeed sorely amiss in the New Hampshire primary vote - at least on the Republican side - cannot easily be discounted.

EXHIBIT #1:

Exhibit number one is a video screen shot of the Boston Globe web site where the election results were listed early on January 9, 2008. After stating at the top that McCain won by some 86,000 votes, the vote tabulation immediately below showed that McCain’s vote counts in each district were all in the single digits, while Ron Paul’s were in the triple and quadruple digit range.

Globe Screenshot 1



Nevertheless, further down at the end of the tabulations, the alleged “sum totals” of the McCain and Paul columns brazenly repeated the same numbers as those stated at the top of the page: McCain 86,902, Ron Paul 17,831, as far as can be recognized.

Globe Screenshot 3



The thing to realize here is that there is no way the columns could simply be “mislabeled” because even if they are switched around and the “McCain” column here was actually the “Ron Paul” column, the numbers simply don't add up to the alleged totals reflected at the bottom. A five year old can tell you as much. Six pages of nothing but single digit numbers do not add up to over 17,000!

Another point to make is that, as per the original tabulation, Tom Tancredo’s column consistently shows the second highest number of votes per district, throughout - at least on this screen shot above. There, Paul and Tancredo were the only ones with vote counts in the quadruple digits. In the “new and improved” tabulation that can be seen today at the Boston.com website, McCain and Romney are the only ones with vote counts of that magnitude.

Globe Screenshot 2



Yet, the obvious error between the Paul/Tancredo and the McCain/Romney columns can in no way be explained as a simple “mislabeling” error. The proportions just do not support that.

If the columns had been switched by accident, the proportionate relationship of the numbers in each column to each other would have remained the same - but they did not, as can be seen from looking at the above shot and comparing it with the currently posted numbers on the Globe web page linked to above.

Here is a verbatim reproduction of the “Note” added by the Globe at the bottom of the table, as of January 12, 2008:

"NOTE: Due to a formatting error, some of the columns of this chart appeared mislabeled in some users' browsers Wednesday morning. They are now correctly labeled. The data appearing on the map was not affected."

That pretty much adds insult to injury. There is no way that “some users’ browsers” could produce such an error. Formatting errors can change fonts, font sizes, and the general appearance of displays, and possibly background colors. I have also seen Mozilla Firefox, for example, delete phone numbers from a screen.

What I have never witnessed is a browser producing four entirely distinct columns of numbers and then switching them around - while at the same time leaving the column labels (i.e., candidate names) in the same position relative to each other. On top of that, even if a browser error could switch columns around in that manner, it cannot change the relative proportions of the numbers in the columns to each other.

Clerical or human error in entering the numbers in each column would have been a far better explanation - but that was not the explanation given. The question is: Why not? Another "human error"?

If this were a criminal case, the foregoing alone would constitute what lawyers call “sufficient probable cause” to execute a search warrant and to initiate a criminal investigation. This goes far beyond a single township (like Sutton) misreporting a single number. It presents sufficient doubt concerning the publicized primary election results to justify the initiation of a full-fledged recount, which gladly has been done already.

Given the circumstances, the above quoted “Note” is at the very least misleading and does warrant further investigation. Every Boston Globe programmer who worked on posting the tabulation of district vote counts should be examined under oath to determine how the above results could possibly be the result of “browser” error. If the results were not due to browser error, then why was browser error given as the reason for the discrepancies?

The web page states that the source of the information in the tabulation was the Associated Press. Logical questions to ask any such programmers would be, for example:

  1. In what form did you receive the vote counts from the Associated Press as indicated on the web page in question?

  2. Did you keep any print outs or screen shots of any such AP results?

  3. Who else besides you has had occasion to review the AP results before you entered them on the Boston Globe page in question?

  4. When, how, and by whom were you informed that the original tabulation of vote counts was supposedly "in error" and needed to be changed?

  5. Who, if anyone, totaled the columns of the original tabulation?

  6. To your knowledge, did any Boston Globe employee attempt to verify the original results obtained from the AP? If so, who, and how did that person perform the verification?

The persons responsible for compiling the AP source information needs to be examined under oath as well. Where did the AP get the results? Who handled the results? How and by whom were the results compiled, and in what form? Are there any hard copy records of these results? Etc.

This stinks to high heaven, and the misleading “explanations” given make the matter appear even more suspect.

I will gladly post any correction necessitated by explanations given by the Boston Globe, if any, or the Associated Press, if any, as to how all of this supposedly happened. I will display them prominently at the top of this page in capital letters. I stand ready to issue a full and complete retraction concerning this matter, should any evidence be presented to me that my personal suspicions as voiced in this article are or were unfounded.

Naturally, the inconsistencies in tabulation, by themselves, can easily be explained by human error. It is the explanation given by the Boston Globe in the "Note" quoted above that arouses serious suspicion concerning possible intentional misconduct.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, AT THIS POINT, NO PERSON, ENTITY, OR ORGANIZATION WAS OFFICIALLY CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME CONCERNING THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY VOTE, AND NO OFFICIAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN LAUNCHED TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THIS ARTICLE MERELY TAKES THE POSITION THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION -AND FOR A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL INVESTIGATION - EXIST.

Alex Wallenwein