Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Urged To Challenge Election Results Due To Possible Hacking [Update] (cnn.com)
Reader Bruha writes: After examining results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin computer scientists have discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots.From a CNN report:The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday. The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source. The group informed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.Halderman wrote more about it on Medium today in an article titled, "Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots"
Update: Green party candidate Jill Stein is asking for donations to fund a recount of her own in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's surprising loss. Stein says she must raise $2.5 million by Friday 4 pm central time to proceed.
Editor's note: the story has been updated and moved up on the front page.
Update: Green party candidate Jill Stein is asking for donations to fund a recount of her own in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's surprising loss. Stein says she must raise $2.5 million by Friday 4 pm central time to proceed.
Editor's note: the story has been updated and moved up on the front page.
Is this part of the fake news? Or is it actually real news? Or is it Clinton being a sore loser. The DNC and Clinton doesn't really have a leg to stand on though, especially after fixing their own primary to make sure she was the candidate.
Clinton and the DNC aren't doing this, and reportedly her team was already told about this data and hasn't done anything about it because they didn't think it indicated fraud.
I stole this Sig
I've seen this said before where it's 'WOW look at all those red counties' which discredits the fact that a whole ton of those counties are just 'slightly' red.
The popular vote was split, it's going to look that way in a whole lotta places. Thinking the election was a 'wash of republicanism' is misunderstanding what those result maps actually mean.
Not by the initial group, no, but others such as Nate Silver and Nate Cohn who looked at the data said that the differences could be accounted for by factoring in demographic differences.could likely account for it.
That said, at some point we're going to need to take measures to make sure that hacking/cheating/rigging doesn't occur, even if only to head off these kinds of accusations. We should not simply blindly trust that an unaudited computer system does what we're told it should. This is something we should put in place for future elections, at the very least, because even if no one actually does try to cheat, it's far too easy to undermine the legitimacy of an election if there's no way to confirm the results are fair. Random audits, such as suggested by Ron Rivest and Phil Stark, would be a good step towards that end:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
There were a number of reports in both directions (some places were reporting favoring Clinton, others Trump). In each case they were found to be poorly calibrated touchscreens - aka, the click position is off from where the user intends. In no case that's been reported did it lead to mis-cast votes, as you have to confirm your selection.
If you were looking to rig an election, showing the person that you've changed their vote and asking them to confirm it would rank near the top of the "Idiotic Approaches" list.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
She lost in places that don't have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines because the people are poorer.
No, she lost in places that do have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It sounds like you need to upgrade your touch panels, or work with Crestron to get working units. I have been working with Crestron TPs for almost 15 years and I can count the number of times I have had to re-calibrate them on one hand.
FTA: "Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review."
Well, not giving a defeat speech is a little out of "best standard"
I just don't get the disconnect from reality involved with people like you. It's kind of like you believe that if you make shit up loudly enough and often enough then it will become true.
You can certainly make people *believe* it's true. However when the rubber meets the road, reality will not yield. I guess when everything fails to work as promised, it won't be you at fault for ignoring reality, no it will be someone else's fault. Some trumpanzees are already beginning to convince themselves pre-emptively that when things go wrong it'll be the Democrat's fault.
Now go and watch Clinton's concession speech and admit that it does in fact exist.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If Politifact rejects claims of rigging, then they just can not be true, can they be?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Where's that come from? A CNN article which doesn't provide a citation to anything which supports that claim, not even NYmag, which seems to be the original source for it. That article is more specific, saying
Going further, the one name given in both articles, J. Alex Halderman, in the post at the other link in the summary, says the article was inaccurate:
... and goes on to give reasons for checking ballots, with absolutely no mention of the statistical anomalies claimed.
Furthermore, examining the above "7%" claim, the Halderman article has a map which shows that all counties in Michigan and Wisconsin use paper ballots. So, there can be no basis for the claim that there's a difference between electronic and paper ballot counties in Wisconsin (or Michigan)!
And, no info on methodology back up the claim - you can't directly compare two different counties in two different states (or even the same state) and expect them to have equivalent vote proportions. If such comparisons were made, were they against previous votes in the same counties? How are they comparing votes in Pennsylvania counties with electronic voting against Michigan and Wisconsin counties? Or are they just using a difference between polls and actual vote totals? Seems the polls were wrong in lots of places, and to try and base any statistical claims on them seems to be a case of garbage-in-garbage-out.
Finally, if as stated the concern is with electronic voting machines, why would they call for recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin, which use paper ballots?
It just defies logic and sense. Is this just fake news which has found its way onto CNN via NYMag?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Nope.
The p-value you "calculate" is not for the hypothesis "the election was hacked." It is for the hypothesis "counties with electronic-only voting machines vote differently than counties with paper-trail voting machines." One, but only one, explanation for why they might be different is that the electronic, but not the paper trail, voting machines were hacked. The other explanation, not ruled out, is that the type of voting machine is indicative of counties that are different in other ways as well.
Also, I note that you are "computing" p-values without actually looking at data-- basically, you're recycling rumors. What is the standard deviation by county for counties that have electronic-only voting, and what is the deviation for counties that don't? You don't have that data. So, you actually can't calculate statistics.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Already been covered:
Clinton was blindsided by poll-shy, white middle-class, mostly women, voters in typically blue states that she ignored because she assumed they were in the "win" column, when, actually, they were in the Rust Belt.
The real 'shy Trump' vote - how 53% of white women pushed him to victory.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's the various academicians that still can't believe Trump won because, "nobody I know voted for Trump".
This is a case of:
- A security researcher using the close election and hand-wringing over possible cheating to try to institutionalize actually CHECKING the paper audit trails against the tabulated results, before discarding the paper.
- And calling for candidates who lost close elections (on either side) to ask for a recount - because that's the only way to get it to happen in THIS election before the paper ballots ARE discarded, after the deadline which is JUST DAYS AWAY.
- Then the mainstream media (in "nobody I know voted for Trump" mode because they don't TALK to anybody outside their echo chamber) trying to spin that into "academics say Hillary lost due to vote-rigging".)
Read TFA: He explicitly says he thinks it's unlikely Hillary lost due to rigging, that the unexpected trump win was due to massively defective polls.
Disclaimer: I've met Halderman. He's a top-notch computer security researcher (and teacher of such in academia) and a cool head.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Given how unpopular Trump is with half the nation"
Trouble is Clinton is equally unpopular, perhaps even more so than Trump
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
No, that is completely false. Electoral votes are decided state-by-state. The electors haven't even cast their ballots yet, so the totals you're seeing are how many Trump and Clinton will get if the electors all vote the way the popular vote tells them to. The detail you're missing is that it's the popular vote in each state that matters, not the national popular vote.
For a simplified example of how this works, imagine 3 states with 10 people in them. Each state gets 1 electoral vote.
State A: All 10 people vote for Clinton. She gets one electoral vote.
State B: 6 people vote for Trump, 4 for Clinton. He gets one electoral vote.
State C: 6 people vote for Trump, 4 for Clinton. He gets one electoral vote.
Trump wins the election 2 electoral votes to 1, even though 18 people voted for Clinton and only 12 for Trump.
Nate has since turned it into a full article:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/
If you actually read, and try to track back to the source material, the summary is highly inaccurate.
There's been a lot of this going around in Slashdot lately and, frankly, it's starting to get annoying.
You wouldn't know it from the SJWs, but you can walk a gay lesbian wearing a hijab through the whitest white town and the worst they might experience is a short chat with local law enforcement
Last I heard, Louisiana was part of the USA. As was New York City, and Charlotte, NC
To bring this thread full-circle, just because you have the privilege of being a Cis White guy so you don't ever have to experience that stuff, doesn't mean it isn't happening to people.
It is done as a matter of course. That's why most states have not certified their results yet.
not even close, you must be young. She is unpopular by damn near every veteran who served in the last 20 years. Her disdain for those who put their lives on the line in service to their country is well known. Even when she was first lady her disdain was apparent. Its amazing how times have changed and what used to be a small thing would shame someone into having to resign. 15 years ago Trent Lott was forced to resign because he told Strom Thurmond (someone older than dirt), at his 100th birthday party, gave a toast to try to make that old bastard feel good. Considering that it had been many decades since we had segregation, it didnt even occur to him that Strom ran on a segregation platform. So he was forced to resign. Consider how much dirt is on so many people thanks to silent whistle blowers and Wikileaks. Trent Lott never:
- got caught in Lie after Lie after Lie and later confirmed by Wikileaks
- complicit in the 1990s in denying constitutional rights to 150k veterans because they were drawing social security benefits so there they MIGHT be unstable
- promised to raise the taxes on the MIDDLE CLASS because 'its time they pay their fair share'
- Praised the 'Australian Solution' for gun control and promise the same thing here
- get caught in saying one thing publicly and then privately to the real masters (Goldman Sachs)
- Set up a private mail server. Lie and say its only for personal use. Delete what we now know turned out to be 650k email messages. Violate federal laws which regulate communication under the freedom of information act. Violate federal laws as to who can view classified information and how its secured and handled. Later in presidential debate insist that only those with clearance ever got sent those unencrypted, plain-text, highly classified, email messages only to get caught lying AGAIN when it was discovered she sent her worthless trust-fund daughter highly classified documents.
- Publicly call EVERY SINGLE ONE of your opponents supporters as the absolute DREGS of society (supporters you would want to sway to your side and win their vote btw)
- be so self centered and conceited that even the campaign slogan says it all "I'm with HER". Its ALWAYS about her not the suffering american worker.
- get caught Colluding with the mainstream media and STEALING the primary election.
- get caught organizing an ex-parte communication with an official presiding over her criminal investigation
- get caught cheating during debates because the campaign was being fed nearly ALL the questions in advance
- get outed by DNC favorite Michael Moore in 2007 as being the most corrupt politician by expressly stating that HRC took more donations by pharmaceuticals than every single other senator COMBINED.
so YES .. she IS that unpopular. Even people who are the CLOSEST to her cant stand her as a person. She has the personality of a rattle snake and twice the bite. She should have stopped when the FIRST screw-up hit the light of day. Its pure arrogance and selfishness to become the FIRST woman president that kept her from standing aside and letting a more qualified, or at LEAST significantly less tainted, person have a real shot.
Let me put it this way... she is so unpopular that DONALD TRUMP, an egotistical bastard with no background in politics, won an election against her. She and those around her represent the very essence of the disgusting Animal Farm behavior coming out of government over the last 20 years. The american people are sick of electing more pigs.
I would say there were more Never-Clintons and Never-Trump participants than those ACTUALLY in EITHER of their campaigns. My guess is that there were more Never-Clintons than Never-Trump's. Especially when the MSM ordered the staff to cut the feed any time Wikileaks got mentioned. That is yellow journalism and blatant coverup. People will not stand for some self appointed elitist class making such a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate, misguide, and mislead. It only enforces our oppositi
The popular vote is meaningless. It would only be meaningful if it actually counted, but it doesn't. Voters know that we have an electoral college, and there are a lot of voters in states that are virtually guaranteed to go a certain way (California, New York, Texas, etc) who stay home because they know their vote isn't going to change anything. If the election was actually decided on a popular vote, THEN we could use that as some metric of determining popularity. We can't use it because people know that it's not a popular vote, and a lot of people stay home because of that.
We DO know that Trump and Clinton are the #1 and #2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, we do know that. We also know that Trump beat Clinton. We know that Clinton lost a national election to someone who is totally unqualified to be the president. We know that too. But it's kind of stupid to look at a difference in votes of less than 2% and use that to claim that Clinton is more "popular" than Trump. She very well could be.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black