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.
Here we go, time to sit back and watch the show that is titled "America"
The DNC knows there was hacking because they've done it before and did it this election too. What a surprise.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Hillary Clinton gave a concession speech. It was watched by millions of people. Learn to use Google--it's accessible via your Breitbart box.
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
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.
If Politifact rejects claims of rigging, then they just can not be true, can they be?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
but I'm baffled where all the Trump supporters came from.
There are a few different groups. Lets get the KKK, Nationalists, etc out of the way. Yes they voted for him (Like they would have voted for Clinton) but their numbers are so small they're really not worth discussing on a national scale.
In the Midwest:
In large part it's blue collar salt of the earth people in the middle. Come out and visit 'us'. (I didn't vote trump but my state and county did). If you make a joke about flyover country you'll probably get punched the 10th time you say it. Most of the people out here are the nicest people you'll meet. If you ever needed anything (Flat tire, etc) they'll be the first to stop and lend a hand. Everyone has had a job that was affected by NAFTA. (Real or perceived, most people think they were affected by NAFTA)
50% of household earning less than $35k don't have Internet. Some townships are on Dialup alone. [Despite having our tax money go to help fix that]. Our infastructure is literally falling apart around us. We don't have enough population in any single county to warrant people paying attention to us. When it comes to 'social' issues most of us are "I don't see it I don't care". When asked where a transgendered person pees it's probably in the woods like everyone else. But we really, really hate being dictated to about 'how it is' from the coasts.
Some of us tried the high road, my county went very Bernie in the primaries. Polls had both WI and MI completely wrong. We saw Bernie as the democratic way to 'make america great again' and were told, literally, "You aren't needed in November" despite filling stadiums and waiting in lines to see Sanders.
Republican votes per county have held flat 2008-2012-2016. Jill stein saw a 'huge' jump between 2012-2016. And Democratic voters more or less just stayed home.
The second group is a bit more entertaining to watch:
It's /r/The_Donald. It's the angry, contrarian young male vote. It seems to be a melting pot of RedPill, 4Chan, and a bunch of other places that demographic hangs out, online equivalent of a bag of cats.
Milo Yiannopoulos seemed to gain a lot of traction and followers out of the GamerGate. They have less in common other than they really really hate the "SJW" type and saw trump as the anti PC candidate. I'm fascinated by people watching so I've dug through some profiles. Most are just 18-25 year old males that feel something about Obama or Clinton gave them the short end of the stick.
The recruiting techniques are pretty much follow gang recruiting techniques that have been used for centuries and are used now to radicalize people for ISIS. "Did those people wrong you? It's this persons fault. Join us and we'll "fix" it".
Beyond that there's really nothing that binds them. (Other than some don't know how to create new Reddit Profiles).
For example one user is a ~20 year old 2nd generation Muslim Indian immigrant. Follows soccer and Cricket, loves cats, smokes cannabis lives in NY, drives around a BMW 435i and used to drive an Audi S5. And is all on the trump train ... because.
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
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
Not all Trump voters are racists.
But every single racist person I know voted for Trump.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
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
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/
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.
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.