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.
Wasn't there election day reports from Pennsylvania of straight Republican votes magically changing to Democratic votes? With cell phone video of it happening?
Because Diebold et al have steadfastly refused to provide a verifiable paper trail, claiming it's too complicated, or incorporate any kind of audit log, we will never know if the votes which people cast were correctly recorded.
This applies to anyone during any election these machines have been in place, not only this one.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
It's the various academicians that still can't believe Trump won because, "nobody I know voted for Trump".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
She lost in places that don't have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines because the people are poorer.
Maybe if Hillary and the rest of the Democrats had given two shits in hell about the middle and lower classes *before* the election she would have received more votes from them.
Do you have ESP?
Having read earlier reports of this analysis, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
From what I read, there was no attempt to find other explanations, like a demographic preference for e-voting over paper, or the local economic costs of maintaining one particular voting mechanism.
Nope, let's just just straight to assuming hacking.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
So what you're saying is if there's a hint of voting fraud we should as a nation just say 'fuck it' and not take a look?
Cause that's pants on head stupid.
Yep. When corrected for race, income, and other variables, the exit polls lined up with the actual vote counts. Butt-hurt Clinton crybabies, get over it. And stop with the whole "majority of the votes" shit. Neither trump nor Clinton wan a majority of the votes. Fucking morons.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Hard to call Clinton a sore loser since she hasn't supported any of these hacking theories or challenged the election in any way.
I don't like Hillary, but I've seen no sign of her being a sore loser. Some of her supporters have perhaps been.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Does not imply causation.
"They looked like pretty typical cases of a broken touch screen to me"
Were it a single machine I'd say you would likely be right without argument.
However, it was more than a single machine. I work with touch screens daily and if they "break" it's usually no touch at all or a segment of the screen is non-responsive. If it's a calibration issue then where you touch may not reflect where the computer THINKS you touch. And those are not uniform -- one maybe a bit above, one maybe a bit to the left and a third machine maybe a lot to the right and down. That more than a single touch screen had the same 'defect' in calibration should toss up some flags.
Even if we had a fully open and verifiable hardware and software architecture, it doesn't prevent someone from finding weaknesses. The only solution to this potential subversion of the people's will is to get rid of e-voting entirely and go back to paper ballots.
It's the various academicians that still can't believe Trump won because, "nobody I know voted for Trump".
Put me in that corner. I accept the election result, but I'm baffled where all the Trump supporters came from. Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump. I suspect that's because this election wasn't really fought along typical Republican vs Democrat, leftie vs rightie lines.
This election was more about the educated vs the blue collar workforce. Most people I know are college educated republicans and they claim they voted for Hillary and they hate Trump. I suspect out in the country, and in the less educated parts of town there were a lot of hourly wage democrats who voted for Donald.
I also think there are a lot of people who are in the "I would never vote for Trump" crowd, because they don't want to be associated with some of his more bizarre stances, who secretly voted for Trump when no one was looking.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You can point out a flaw in the system without agreeing with the flaw in the system...
I really don't understand this us/them mentality that people keep spewing. We all work together, we are family members, coworkers and fellow human beings with the same exact needs.
I work in a heavily republican environment. But they are all good people and I respect my co-workers. I don't believe in some of their choices, but who cares? Why should someone's choice for president make them the enemy? It's just stupid.
The only reason I can come up with is that it is in the best interest for those in power to keep the voting base divided. So all these "problems" are weaponized and sold to us as the bogey man coming to take our children.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I'd actually like to see their data before I make up my mind. If it's just a correlation, that could just be a correlation between where voting machines tend to be located in a state and thus what demographics of voters will use them. 7% difference wouldn't be unreasonable in such a case. On the other hand, if they're controlling for that, it is concerning.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
No know plenty of "blue collar" people who are "educated" and visa versa.
When you try to turn this into a "smart" vs "not smart" you are asking for trouble. It's more likely about people who have been negatively impacted by the last few decades of policy.
For instance, I'm thinking that there is a good chance that plenty of IT workers who have had to train their foreign replacement voted for Trump.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And by using buzzwords and calling everyone who disagrees with you every -ism in the book, we know you're a Clinton supporter.
Time to watch both sides put their fingers in their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you! This article means what I want it to mean!"
It's worth noting that if you actually read the article, he doesn't say that the ballots actually were hacked: in fact, what he says is "Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked." What he suggests is that it would be valuable to do the testing to verify: to "help allay doubt and give voters justified confidence that the results are accurate."
From this point of view, it does make sense: "trust but verify". It also makes sense to do something he doesn't suggest, which is to break down some of the electronic voting machines and inspect the code for malware (he only suggests comparing the paper trail to the electronic count, not looking at the machines that don't have a paper trail.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
who secretly voted for Trump when no one was looking
We're living in the midst of another McCarthy-ist era; people can lose a lot if they're found to support the "wrong" side or have a non-SJW compliant opinion. The left should really look into working around the secret ballot in public elections as they've been trying to do in union elections; that would secure their power forever.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump. I suspect that's because this election wasn't really fought along typical Republican vs Democrat, leftie vs rightie lines.
And that's exactly what it is. You'll find people from both sides of the isle voted for Trump because of what Hillary stood for. The reality is there was more support for Trump because he wasn't establishment, she was. They feel that the current state of government doesn't represent the people. That's why he had the support. The media is at a loss, and still hasn't learned anything from it though.
A lot of people like myself, who are or were heavily invested in politics saw this coming. This has been building for ~20 odd years, and it's very close to reaching the full-on shoot politicians in the streets. The Tea Party stuff was a warning sign, just like AfD, FN, and so on are warning signs. The media refused to listen, the politicians refused to listen. In the end Trump is far less extreme then the next candidate would have been. Just like Le Pen is, just like Frauke Petry is.
I also think there are a lot of people who are in the "I would never vote for Trump" crowd, because they don't want to be associated with some of his more bizarre stances, who secretly voted for Trump when no one was looking.
It's more likely they don't want to be targeted or attacked. You can seem multiple cases of that all over the US. Unlike the people who claimed "Trump supporters" attacked them. Those people who made the claims are being charged with filing false police reports. Off the top of my head, I can think of fake rape, fake assaults, fake vandalism, fake flyers, fake deportation letters, fake claims of harassment and mugging.
Om, nomnomnom...
When Trump made the claim that the election was rigged Politifact ruled it "Pants on Fire", because "Given the decentralized nature of our elections, there would be no single way to throw the results," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Meh, it's the standard difference between the parties' approach, and I'd be shocked if you didn't actually know why.
* Republicans focus on voter fraud because stricter restrictions on what people need to vote most often discourage or prevent youth and minority turnout.
* Democrats focus on disenfranchisement, not fraud, for precisely the same reason.
To be fair to Democrats, cases of confirmed voter fraud are exceedingly rare (31 cases between 2000 and 2014 - rarer than being struck by lightning), while cases of confirmed erroneous disenfranchisement are not (tens of thousands erroneously removed from the rolls). The reason that voter fraud (impersonation) is rare is because the risks vastly exceed the reward. You don't throw an election by casting one extra vote for your candidate at the risk of facing a $10k fine and jailtime if you're caught - per case. Even most of the extremely-reported cases of "dead people voting" in recent history have turned out to be clerical errors (e.g. wrong date on the death certificate). With millions of people dying every year, these sorts of errors will happen at a given rate every election.
As for the particular example of Voter ID laws: Not everyone in the US has a photo ID. Those who don't are proportionally younger (e.g. haven't registered yet, haven't gotten a driving license yet, etc), poorer (no money for a car so no driving license; not traveling so no need for passport, etc), often minorities, Native Americans, etc - groups that tend to be overwhelmingly Democrats. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Republicans support these laws and Democrats oppose them. The courts have generally gone against them because they proportionally disenfranchise certain groups, and more to the point were often explicitly planned to do so. In the case of North Carolina, for example, the legislature explicitly requested data on different methods of voting by race, and then explicitly crafted legislation to target African Americans based on that data.
If the US could get its act together and issue everyone a national ID, the situation would be different. But I know Americans are often against things like national IDs involving national databases and other scary things.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
If Donald Trump had gotten 2 million more popular votes than Hillary Clinton and still lost the election, would he and his supporters have accepted it graciously and not claimed fraud?
Hell, Trump was claiming fraud before the election even took place.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Have a good look at how Clinton supporters acted during the election. They would come out and physically attack Trump supporters. Is it any surprise that many just didn't bother to scream their affiliations from a rooftop? You probably know plenty of people who voted Trump and they just didn't bother to tell you because they didn't want to deal with the reaction and chastisement.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Well, not giving a defeat speech is a little out of "best standard".
Oh really..I suppose the liberal media just staged this whole event then?
Indeed. And although I was never (and still am not) a fan of Clinton (nor Trump), I'm willing to cut her a break on this one. Whether or not you supported Trump and even if you believed media coverage and polls were biased against him, everything the Hillary campaign was going on indicated that she had a 95% or even 99% chance of winning. I'm sure they didn't adequately even prepare a draft of a concession speech until around 10pm the night of the election. Heck, we've heard reports from other countries that they didn't even prepare for the possibility of a Trump victory and only got around to trying to establish contacts with his campaign a week after the election! And Clinton and her family had been in the political limelight for the past 25 years or so -- and suddenly, she's looking at going home.
So, she called Trump and conceded. But rather than addressing a group of supporters in shock in the middle of the night with a half-assed speech, she waited for her speechwriters to sober up and write what was actually a reasonably good speech that actually called for an "open mind" to what Trump would do and a "peaceful transfer of power."
I may not like her, but I give her kudos for that speech. It may be more typical to give a concession speech in the middle of the night, but personally I'm glad she waited until the morning when it could be heard -- because it had important conciliatory messages... some of which haven't subsequently been heeded by her supporters.
I agree, and I suspect it would be both a waste of time and money, and counter productive, for Clinton to challenge the results because of that. From Clinton's point of view, there's no upside: the likely result of a challenge is that the results will stay the same, resulting in her being portrayed as a "sore loser" (see Al Gore, who had far more legitimate reasons to demand recounts in Florida, but was demonized for it), and Trump's legitimacy being entrenched in the public mind.
The only person whose interests would be served by an audit would be Trump. I just don't see it as likely he'll ask for one.
I think this is a dead end, much as I'd like to see Trump's inauguration cancelled.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Actually, you've stated it exactly wrong: the counties with the differences were not "demographically similar." When you control for demographics, the difference in voting patterns disappears. See also https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/... and https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/....
Actually I didn't vote for Clinton, but I did listen closely to what Trump said.
Anyone with any modicum of reasoning could figure out pretty quick that he isn't cut out for being POTUSA.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Actually, the behavior displayed by Trump during the campaign was obviously irrational and demagogic.
His behavior, even up to the current day hinges on unstable.
It is pretty easy to use those words to describe Trump and his attitudes towards various minority groups.
It is right there in the public record.
But sure, if you choose not to use those words that is your decision.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
This election was more about the educated vs the blue collar workforce.
I rather doubt it. Trump offered nothing valuable to the blue collar workforce.
Much more likely is that this was a battle between "Not Trump" and "Not Clinton", it came down to who could get more people to the polls to stop the other party's candidate. At the end of the day, the GOP hatred for Clinton won out over the democrat's concern over Trump.
Just look at this year's numbers. Between 2012 and 2016, our country's population increased by over 10 million, yet 6 million fewer votes were cast. The bulk of those votes that were cast in 2012 but not in 2016 were people who voted Obama in 2012 and stayed home in 2016. There are very few states where Trump (in 2016) received more votes than Romney (in 2012), but there were many where Clinton (in 2016) received notably fewer than Obama (in 2012).
Hence the real question is whether the democratic voters sat out because they didn't care (or didn't like Hillary) or sat out because they believed all the polling before election day that said she was going to win easily.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Wanting to enforce immigration laws is not xenophobia.
Accurately pointing out violent, criminal illegal immigrants is not xenophobia.
Detesting sharia law is not xenophobia.
Wanting people to be treated by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is not racism.
All lives matter is not racism.
Criticizing a judge who belongs to La Raza is not racism.
Treating women with the same vulgarity that we treat men with isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Holding a woman to a high standard of classified document handling isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with current abortion laws isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with coddling college students in "safe spaces" isn't bigotry.
I own *all* of that. You can continue your own personal bigotry against those who disagree with you by labeling them "extreme", but it might help if you actually looked past the MSM sound bites, and understand that Trump is a crass reaction to the smothering politically correct left wing that has gone to ridiculous extremes over the past 20 years.
I think the "fake news" part of this is really under appreciated.
This is exactly the kind of thing that erodes people's faith in the ability of the news media to report facts, and to report facts without bias.
It's a pretty big deal to suggest you have evidence the presidential election was stolen. This is not a feel-good fluff piece, it deserves a little editorial attention. A review of the evidence by an expert in election statistics shows that it's really just normal voting patterns. Some people are going to read the article on CNN, read the actual statisticians response elsewhere, and know CNN was putting out click bait, not a real news story. If you're upset that other people putting out fake click bait articles skewed the election, then what CNN is doing here should really piss you off.
There is no way a responsible journalist publishes this story, or a responsible news organization carries it. It is BS like this that supports the idea that there are different standards for "truth" in the media depending on the politics attached to article.
I think a different standard applies to Halderman. He's a computer security researcher who is using the election as an example of a vulnerable system. It's great for him to put out his Medium piece, he's not pretending to be anything other than a guy really interested in the mechanisms for verifying information systems, and he right up front is clear that he's not making any claim that the election was actually stolen.
Mod parent up.
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 (yes, it's harassment, and it's wrong, but we're talking police looking at anomalies here), whereas if you took a straight white male, dressed in a #MAGA hat, and walked them through the blackest black neighborhood in Chiraq, they're almost guaranteed to be physically assaulted by civilians. Hell, this might even be true on most liberal college campuses.
Despite all of the claims of victimhood, the left wing has become more violent, intolerant, and bigoted over the years - the only socially acceptable racism anymore is anti-white racism.
Now, one day, perhaps people can safely come out of the closet and admit their conservative views - but for now, much like gays during the dark days of oppression and threat of physical violence, it just isn't safe to be open.
Trump did 7% worse in places with paper voting, suggesting that there were irregularities with paper voting.
Not just him. The default response is to call Trump voters racist. I didn't vote for him, but I've heard it happen here at work.
Meanwhile lots of candidates and politicians are potential racists. You can't get around that. Joe Biden might be one, does that mean his voters in the past (pre VP) were also racists? Of course not.
Finger the ones pushing the narrative that Trump voters are and I'll show you the people tearing this country apart in their losing bid to retain influence for their political masters.
Actually, America's interests would be served by doing a recount of some portio of the ballots to verify accuracy. Quite apart from who won, it's valuable to check, check, and check again to verify if there is an error or tampering.
But, yes, it may not be in the Democratic Party's best interest. Although to be frank, they are already being labelled "sore losers" despite conceding the election and explicitly instructing their supporters to accept the results, so I doubt it would make any difference in how they are perceived.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Please do look into it, I implore you. Not because I think it would change the outcome, but because I believe it would only expose vote tampering and fraud on the democrats' end. Which will only serve to embarrass them further, since they still lost.
Now wait for Hillary or the democrats to release statements that they do not wish for it to be looked into.
She can't be that unpopular. Even Trump says that she's a good woman. Most of her unpopularity is either related to FUD from Trump's negative campaign, and concerns that were determined to be baseless at the last minute.
I'm not a "precious little snowflake". So go f' yourself. I have legitimate reasons to fear Trump, to wit:
.com bust as companies bring trillions of dollars back to the USA in the wake of Trump tax cuts letting them off scott free and promptly embark on the biggest Merchants & Acquisitions buying spree in history. Oh, and look forward to prices skyrocketing as competition basically ends.
1. Repeal ACA. I have friends who depend on the medicare expansion to live. One's a Type-1 diabetic who until Obamacare didn't have enough insulin. Almost died a few times. He's 8 years older now and probably gonna die the next time.
2. End of Roe v Wade. My daughter has several congenital problems that might some day necessitate an abortion. Mike Pence would rather see her flown into God's embrace than risk the sin that is Abortion. Yeah, I'm being flippant by putting it that way, but it doesn't make it less true.
3. Cash repatriation. Got a job? Got friends with jobs? Prepare for the biggest round of layoffs since the
I could go on and on. Trump supporters who aren't millionaires are all fucked, and they've dragged me and my family and friends along for the ride. If you see a train coming your way and you can't get out of the way because of a gaggle of morons any sane person would react with fear.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Well if the alt-left didn't scream at everyone calling them all racist misogynistic cis-scum ultra Hitlers 2.0 for the past year, then maybe she'd of won.
...it would only expose vote tampering and fraud on the democrats' end
Why else would Hitlary not have begun immediately screaming out claims of vote-rigging??
"So 1.3M or so fewer voters disliked Clinton. "
Fail. I'll posit that a very large number of voters didn't like either of them, they just closed their eyes and swallowed. You can't assume a vote means a like.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Here you go
1. She set up an email server with the intent to avoid document retention and freedom of information laws.
2. She used the server to store and transmit material with above top secret clearance. In violation of federal law and agreements she signed.
3. When legally subpoenaed for the email she destroyed the information. In violation of laws regarding obstruction of justice
4. She lied under oath about what she did and the circumstances around what she did. That's perjury.
That help ?
The first point is not a fact. Once you assign motivations you are engaging in supposition and are no longer dealing with facts.
Well Sanders won the popular vote, but not the GOP's version of the Electoral ( Super-delegates ) . If you want to count by Popular vote then Hillary *still* wouldn't be there.
As for looking at the election machines now? The evidence has been damaged or tainted by this point. It wouldn't stand up in court.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.