With Hillary Clinton's recent win over rival Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary, cries of foul play and voter fraud have increasingly become louder and louder, and it's deeply disturbing. With Hillary Clinton's recent win over rival Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary, cries of foul play and voter fraud have increasingly become louder and louder, and it's deeply disturbing.

::::::::

With Hillary Clinton’s recent win over rival Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary, cries of foul play and voter fraud have increasingly become louder and louder, and it’s deeply disturbing.

The theory that the now infamous manufacture of voting equipment, Diebold, gave Hillary Clinton a slim margin of victory immediately began to circulate almost as soon as Obama delivered his concession speech.

The conspiracy

The claim, as with most conspiracies, is an overly simplistic one that easily subdues the minds of those who scoff at mental exercise and who never stray from their pack. It states that because Hillary Clinton led Obama in towns where votes were counted by machine (53 to 47) and Obama led Clinton in towns where votes were counted by hand (54 to 46) then there is evidence of voter fraud on a massive scale.

Simply stated, the theory says this: ‘Obama was ahead in the polls before the election, and because Clinton beat Obama in areas where votes were counted by machine and not in areas where votes were hand counted, then it is evident that machines were tampered with to produce the result.’

Folks, this is called a fallacy of logic. Specifically, it’s a “post hoc” fallacy, which is short for the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which means, “after the fact, therefore because of it.” This kind of logic is simplistic, and is almost never true.

Injecting rationalism

That fact that Clinton won the areas where votes were counted by machine does not mean that she won because they were counted by machine. This fact is evidence of something, but not of fraud. It’s evidence that Clinton preformed better in large cities than she did in small towns.

Areas that had automatic ballot counting machines where not random districts throughout the state, they were all the largest cities and towns in New Hampshire where Clinton’s support was greatest. Areas where votes were counted by hand were obviously the smaller towns and rural areas were such a method is practical.

New Hampshire followed the same pattern that is has followed in the past two Democratic primaries; more heavily populated areas supported the more centrist candidate (this year Clinton, Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000), and rural areas more strongly supported the more liberal candidate, (this year it was Obama, Dean in 2004, Bill Bradley in 2000).

When the contributing factors are examined, there is no evidence of cheating on the part of Hillary Clinton. When the conspiracy deepens and widens to include President Bush, the Diebold Corporation, the GOP and the World Bank as conspirators against Obama, it gets to be downright laughable. It’s an embarrassment for freethinking liberals and progressives, who are able to rise above the most simple of notions.

The conspiracy movement has now been bolstered by assistance from one presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich. But there is a reason why it’s Kucinich who is asking for a recount, and not the candidate who can actually afford to pay for one. It’s not because Dennis believes in UFOs, the reason is because Obama knows that the areas that he lost weren’t firmly in his grasp, the results aren’t really suspect.

The conspiracy junkies never stop to realize or look for rational factors that might defeat their position. This is inherent to the mentality; once the most simplistic or ‘antiestablishment’ path has been accepted, then they fortify their ill-conceived notions against the slings and arrows of all logic and reason.

Here is a list of factors that damage the New Hampshire conspiracy conclusion:

1.      The New Hampshire Democratic primary was tie; both Clinton and Obama received nine delegates each. If it was a fraud, it was not a very successful one.

2.      New Hampshire isn’t Florida. They use scantron ballots that leave a very clear and traceable paper record. Voters make a mark on a paper, and then a machine reads the mark. These are the good kind of machines that proponents of transparent elections want, not the awful all-electronic machines used in Ohio and Florida where the only paper record is one printed by a machine.

3.      Voting machines in New Hampshire aren’t linked by any kind of a network, meaning that one person could not act alone to commit fraud. Each machine would’ve had to have been tampered with in person. The massive level that the conspiracy would’ve needed to be at alone brings the scenario to the edge of insanity.

4.      I can’t stress this enough, the Iowa caucuses are an undemocratic process that Obama shamefully exploited to his advantage, which is the only reason why he won by such a large margin. He brought in out of town voters, encouraged out-of-state students to caucus for him, he made shady pacts with Richardson, and Kucinich, and his precinct captains fraudulently increased the number of participants in caucuses so that second tier candidates would be deemed unviable, and would therefore have to caucus for someone else. That's a pretty good plan when you have pacts set up. By contrast, the New Hampshire primary is a very fair process that employs the concept of ‘one person, one vote, and by secret ballot.’ There no peer pressure, voters have to be registered, no out of state voters are allowed, and there is certainly no backroom vote-swapping taking place between candidates, as if our votes are tokens to be traded at will.

5.      It’s actually much easier to cheat in a hand count. Like in Iowa where precinct captains “adjusted” the number of participants at caucus locations, Obama supporters could have just as easily adjusted the number of votes in a hand count. (Not that it ever happened.)

6.      Polls were wrong in New Hampshire. They were inaccurate for two reasons: The first is because the New Hampshire came too close to Iowa (only five days later), and there simply wasn’t enough time to gather good samplings. The second is due to the makeup of New Hampshire’s voters; 40% of them are registered independents. A number of polls incorrectly attributed independents to Obama instead of John McCain.

7.      Media irresponsibility. Some polls actually did get the numbers right. On January 5th the Concord Monitor predicted a one point advantage for Obama, so did the Suffolk/WHDH poll on January 6th. What’s the most telling is that the January 6th poll sponsored by CNN showed Obama up by 9 points, but their January 5th poll had Clinton and Obama exactly tied. Had they any journalistic responsibility left in them and were not a slave to ratings, then they would have reported that their January 6th poll must be an anomaly. It’s virtually impossible for a candidate to gain 9 points in a single night with no major event to propel the numbers. But, statistical irregularities and incongruent poll results aren’t as sensational as reporting dramatic poll changes, which is what pulls in the advertizing dollars.

What really happened…

In New Hampshire, people are confused about what they saw, because it’s not something that we’ve seen lately, so conspiracy theories are an easy and comforting because with a conspiracy, people can rest-assured that we live in a world where the media determines the outcome of all elections. It’s easier than accepting the truth; that what we really saw in New Hampshire was voters taking the process back for ‘we the people.’

I am fearful that liberals and progressives are becoming the new agents of conspiracy theories; that rational voices will become dissidents, not leaders. I would much rather have the far-right keep that particular honor to themselves with their moon landing denials, 6000 year old Earth fantasies, and stories of extraterrestrial influence in the federal government.

Authors Website: www.revrob.com

Authors Bio:
Founder of "The Rev. Rob Times," (www.revrob.com) Rev. Robert A. Vinciguerra has been a longtime student of journalism. From Phoenix, Arizona.