Slashdot Mirror
Green Party Calls For Recount, Wants To Push For Open-Source Voting Machines (nbcnewyork.com)
The Green party candidate in the U.S. presidential election, Jill Stein, has raised over $5 million in donations to fund a recount in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's loss on November 8th. She is seeking a recount in these three states after computer scientists discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e-voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots. An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: On November 23, the Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections," calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment." In approximately 48 hours (as of 1:20pm EST (GMT-5) on Nov-25-2016) $5,026,516.15 has been raised to pay for a recount in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and [they are] currently collecting towards a recount in Michigan. The Green party also states: "The Green Party Platform calls for 'publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; use verifiable paper ballots; and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results.'" More details can be read on MSNBC news. The Washington Post asks: Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount? UPDATE 11/25/16: Washington Examiner is reporting that Green Party officials have filed for a presidential vote recount in Wisconsin.
UPDATE 11/26/16: Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that it will take part in the recount in Wisconsin.
UPDATE 11/26/16: Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that it will take part in the recount in Wisconsin.
My god people! The election is over. Trump won fair and square!
And an entirely different campaign will be accused of being a bad loser...
Still, if it's paid for, then it'll be worthwhile: It'll either increase confidence in the results (and maybe get some to accept their candidate lost), or it'll identify weakness that can be fixed.
I don't really expect it to change the results of the election - I'd bet faithless electors in the Electoral College is more likely to change the result than this.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
There is no way to verify the integrity of the machines on voting day, nor to safeguard the integrity of the polling data between the voting machine and the final tally. Open source means nothing here.
Electronic voting as a whole is a gigantic boondoggle. There are only three reasons for it to exist: People who are too impatient to wait for manual counting, people who are looking to make a tidy profit selling a broken solution to a problem that doesn't need solving, and people who are interested in a way to fuck with the polls without getting caught.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a slip of paper and a pen. Or have people dip their finger in ink like we've all seen done...
=Smidge=
Remember, most IoT devices run Linux, which is open source. They're also a huge source of vulnerabilities and responsible for a lot of recent massive DDoS attacks. If open source isn't secure in IoT devices, why would we ever expect open source voting machines to be secure? Open source voting machines are the last thing we need if we want security.
Wow, 2000 called and wants it's anti-OSS argument back
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Jill Stein is a Democrat?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Except that this is being called for by the Green Party.
Little buyers remorse, what?? Stein and the other "independent" idiots made Trump president, now live in the world you made and STFU!
...does something useful for a change.
The real motivation here is that any criminal can examine the open source code, find vulnerabilities, and exploit them. The Democrats had farore money to spend during the election than the Republicans did, as proved by how much Hillary outspent Trump. The liberals have more than enough money to pay criminals, who can find and exploit vulnerabilities to ensure that Democrat candidates win.
Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won". Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state. Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
yeah... its "over"... but they have the right to request the recount, so they are taking them up on that option.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
Oh well, if the Greens want to waste their money, let them.
To the ACs whining about "They can't accept the outcome"... they are using legal avenues to make sure its right. It's not like the Greens are asking for special consideration because "AWMG RIGGED!!!"
Trump was crying like a 2 year old about everything (CROOKED, RIGGED, WAHH) was so unfair and as soon as he got his way, he smiled and sat contently in the corner. Just like a two year old that got his way.
Let them, they are allowed to request it and they did.
Great idea! Let's give the Russians access to the source code of our voting machines. We can certainly trust they'll never look for vulnerabilities and hack our voting machines. Putin would never use our source code against us, now would he?
You can't expect the Alt-right to get hung up on little things like fact. REmember, we're in the post-truth era now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Look at the Russian hacks, they were targeting the vote registration data. From that data you get the list of absentee voters and the list of habitual non-voters. When Florida is busy receiving all those faxed votes, it has no way of telling they come from a US military base in Afghanistan or a Russian propaganda base in Moscow. They simply don't validate the origin of absentee votes sent by post or fax.
Ohio didn't send out 1 million absentee ballots (the Republican governor withheld absentee ballots from people who moved within Ohio, i.e. renters not home owners), yet Ohio had a record year for absentee ballot voting.
And it was Russia:
http://time.com/4472169/russian-hackers-arizona-voter-registration/
"Russians Hacked Arizona Voter Registration Database -Official...Russians were responsible for the recent breach of Arizona’s voter registration system, the FBI told state officials in June. He said hackers gained access after stealing the username and password of an election official in Gila County, rather than compromising the state or county system."
This is Illinois's hack:
http://time.com/4471042/fbi-voter-database-breach-arizona-illinois/
Florida was also hit, and likely many more too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/
"Feds believe Russians hacked Florida election-systems vendor"
Proof:
http://imgur.com/a/n75Hv
which shows my vote hasn't counted since at least five elections ago. I vote by mail here in Seattle, and the county admits to thrown 7% of the votes into the trash. We all know it's much higher.
Hillary^wJill Stein is going to make you get GAY MARRIED!
here is another big problem "these three states after computer scientists discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e-voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots" Michigan Is a PAPER BALLOT state, we don't use e-voting machines here so their claim is baseless here. In PA you need to show proof of it and what they provided was nothing close to be counted as proof.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
Fool. Stein has supposedly raised more money for this bogus recount which she can't win than she raised on her entire campaign. Only states that Trump won are being contested, not states that were even closer but Hillary supposedly won. Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Yes, even more confusing. What, is she hoping to go from 1% of the vote to 1.1% of the vote? She was so far out of contention that even if her vote totals increased 2000% she'd still lose. So why is she doing this, unless it's a back-room deal to assist the 2nd place candidate - Hillary Clinton?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Perhaps you can tell me which of the 3 states Stein is likely to win?
Perhaps you can tell me who is most likely to benefit if the 3 states she challenges are overturned?
Oh, I'm sorry, you fell for the narrative, refused to READ what I posted, and posted your talking points like a good little boy. Now we know you are a paid poster for the DNC as well.
Thank you.
The electronic count is fine for election night quick estimates, but the official/certified tally should always have be done from the paper trail. The existence of the paper trail shows a lack of faith in the electronic total, so obviously there is more trust in the paper and a desire to use the paper to verify results.
There's no actual promise by the Green Party to actually spend that money on the recount effort.
For that matter, they shouldn't need to spend much money at all on it. So why is Stein asking for even more cash?
Oh, yeah. Graft. So, Jill, who gave you all of that money? Since it's a political campaign donation, I'm sure you kept track of the names of all of those donors, right? And you'll give it back if the recount fails?
What? No? What a shock...
MightyMartian is going to make you get GAY MARRIED!
You mean the voting machines which were demonstrated to be compromised by a monkey? Right now, there is no vetting of voting machines. At best, we have a "here is something. Trust us". This is not acceptable for something as critical as voting. Hell, we don't accept this with cloud providers, using encryption clientside before the data leaves the premises.
I get a paper receipt for a sub-dollar purchase. Why is voting worth less than this? There should be a paper trail of ballots, just to allow for a recount. If a current voting machine gets hacked or their SD card dies, you have to throw out those votes, which means hundreds of people just were disenfranchised. A paper trail can be tampered with, but it is a lot harder.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think elections should be:
(1) held using pen and paper only (no electronic voting, no mail voting)
(2) on a Sunday (no conflict with work)
(3) require a photo ID
(4) stain people's right thumb to indicate that they have voted
Two other reforms:
(a) only citizens should count in the allocation of seats and electors
(b) congressional districts should be created algorithmically and have an upper limit on the ratio of the square of the boundary size of the district to the area of the district
The GOP doesn't have to just win, they have to win beyond legal challenge.
You'd have a slightly less tenuous argument if not for the problems of...
New Hampshire in 1974
Washington in 2004
North Carolina this year
I mean fuck man, you've got a hate-on for the DNC, but it doesn't take much effort to find that the GOP has done the same thing, when circumstances warranted.
Of course, you also have the Trump campaign itself declaring the election rigged, and refusing to abide by the results if they thought it was contestable. Now somebody is, and you hypocritically want to deny them that right.
DNC is not interested in voter fraud until they lose. There is not a single case of proven voter fraud EVER according to Clinton and Obama the week before the vote. Resist voter ID at every possible case because there is no voter fraud. They lose, suddenly voter fraud by the tens of thousands across 3 states.
ID only covers in-person voter fraud, not the other forms of electoral manipulation that could exist, and which Obama and Clinton have both supported addressing, in fact, Obama's Department of Justice has made a statement.
Though maybe you should think about Bush's actions.
People just shaved off their beards and went to vote for trump again.
Yeah, because open source is brand new and untested and has been proven to be ...
Oh wait.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Because she prefers fair elections over rigged elections? Because she prefers president Clinton over president Trump?
Sorry, but no conspiracy theories are necessary.
Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount?
Because orange isn't green.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Not that guy, but people noticed early on that the money being donated was coming in at a consistent $160,000 per hour which is very fishy
That's around the clock, midnight through morning, all through the day. Same rate, no matter the time.
Some people are going to donate who are real, and the more publicity it gets the more legit donations she is going to get, but there is obviously a source that is astroturfing this.
When you allow ballots to be mailed in, who is going to audit that real people registered .. and voted? I mean it's auditable but in real life not practically.
And then there is the electronic ballot .. they need to give you a paper receipt so you can check how you own vote was counted.
MightyMartian is GAY MARRIED!
Nah GOPAC is a Republican election PAC, it had only the course voter data per zone. So it sent identical letters to neighborhoods that would vote likely Republican but had a low vote turnout shaming them on their low voting record.
You were supposed to respond by going out and voting, and being Republican demographic on their election data probability chart, they would get a vote.
Besides, jews are famous for being democrats.
And maybe because Jill Stein likes doing the bidding of Vlad Putin, stirring up illegitimate complaints about the integrity of the US political system.
The verifiable evidence lies in the states she chose to recount. Why no recount in California or New Hampshire or even Florida? Evidence doesn't always mean catching someone red-handed.
who stand to lose a lot from a Trump presidency. My interests here align with them. The Enemy of my Enemy and what have you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So, maybe I'll do a blog post about this, but the data is surprisingly easy to find. Buffalo county, which uses exclusively e-voting touchscreen machines, and voted for Obama in 2012, ended up voting for Trump by a huge percentage in '16. La-fayette county, Obama '12, Trump '16, all e-voting machines, huge discrepancy in vote. Door County, Obama '12, Trump '16, but much much closer in vote count; optical scanning of paper ballots and not a touchscreen machine.
This is literally the first 3 counties that voted Obama in '12, Trump in '16 that I selected pretty much at random. It does nothing to dispel the claims of potential fraud, nor do the many demonstrations of e-voting machines being easy to hack. That a bunch of experts have claimed it would be hard to do so because the machines aren't on the internet only shows that the only expertise they have is manipulating things on the internet. There are plenty of actual, physical manipulations of vote counts in US election voting history, New York in the 19th century was rife with it for some time periods. Not everything, surprisingly, has to be done through the internet.
There's nothing wrong with seeking not just a re-count, but in checking the machines used for signs of tampering which is an incredibly necessary idea. Secure elections are a cornerstone of democracy, and double checking one already rife with hacking and blatant media manipulation is an obvious idea.
1) Agreed.
2) Security through obscurity is a concept we all used to ridicule... in 1998.
Because this is good publicity for her ? (As in talking about something is good publicity, whatever you say about it)
In PA you need to show proof of it and what they provided was nothing close to be counted as proof.
Just like in PA where the claim of "massive" voter fraud has been tossed about for years despite not a single case being shown as proof. Yet apparently not providing proof was sufficient enough for the legislature to pass a law to prevent this "massive" voter fraud.
If no proof of "massive" voter fraud was sufficient to get the gears rolling then there's no reason not to recount the ballots despite the limited amount of evidence presented. You can't have it both ways.
Also, while Michigan may use paper ballots, it still uses a computer to record the votes. Straight from the Michigan Secretary of State web site:
All voters in Michigan use optical scan ballots. Optical scan voting requires voters to either darken an oval or connect the head and tail of an arrow next to each of their choices on their ballot. Completed ballots are fed into a tabulator, which scans and records the votes. (italics mine)
That right there is the rub. How does one know the electronic machine is correctly recording the votes? Just because a vote is registered does not mean it was registered correctly. Since Michigan has paper ballots, hand count them. It's the easiest way to see if there are any irregularities.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What do you claim that I made up? Or are you just unable to comprehend the facts?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
2) Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs. That makes it far easier for criminals to discover vulnerabilities and tamper with elections. Having open source voting machines virtually guarantees that criminals will be able to exploit vulnerabilities and have a much easier time rigging elections.
That argument has been debunked over and over. The real argument against open-source in elections is that all it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because
that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
There's so much hypocrisy in this. On the one hand they don't really give a shit about election integrity and very important things to ensure that our elections really are meaningful and accurate. They don't support biometric voter registration which is standard in many countries now. They don't give a shit about vote weight disparity (in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity). They don't really give a shit about meaningful election forensics.
Basically this is just more bullshit from people who engage in nothing but bullshit.
Except its not whether they were close, its whether they were hacked.
We had large-scale Russian hacking in this election, mostly registration data being targeted and one voting machine maker. Sometimes using the stolen credentials of the state's voting administrator, which suggests wider election tampering powers.
When you KNOW your election was hacked, it makes sense to at least check.
The GOP is a yuuuuge pack of pussies who can't decide whether to be grabbed by Trump now that he's going to be president or be a bunch of whiny little bitches when an orange self-promoting hatemonger with no moral center took over their party.
But it's okay, because he's a star. Here, have some TicTacs
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You really do just make shit up, don't you?
Which statements do you dispute?
It's true that her "recount" fundraising has raised more than twice as much as she raised throughout her entire campaign.
It's true that she is only asking for recounts in States that Trump won, even though several States had even tighter margins, but were carried by Clinton. She isn't asking for recounts in any of those states.
The concluding statement is entirely reasonable, given the facts.
You really do just make up accusations, don't you?
Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".
So you're saying Stein cannot possibly consider Hillary to be the lesser evil and couldn't possibly decide to verify that Hillary lost on her own. As for the funding it cannot possibly be the over 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary either. For you it really has to be some conspiracy. Just because... ???
You bring up her ethnicity for some reason? People of Jewish descent have been both Republicans like Henry Kissinger and Democrats. Much like the rest of the population.
Green party. For showing me who and whom i should never vote for. And to think I would have voted for Stein.
There is no way to verify the integrity of the machines on voting day
Sure there is! The proper application of cryptography will solve these issues. Only allow signed firmware to run and have each machine have it's own key (stored in an MCU). On voting day after all the machines are put out, you use a simple NFC device to do an authentication exchange. If the authentication fails, then the machine has been compromised. It requires plenty of time and money to bypass the security of one device, much less thousands.
nor to safeguard the integrity of the polling data between the voting machine and the final tally.
Sure there is! You print the voter selection onto a card with some additional blockchain data. If the blockchain is broken upon tallying, you are missing votes or if some don't fit in the blockchain, you have fraudulent votes.
Open source means nothing here.
Sure it does! The idea seems to be to have Open Hardware and Open Software that can be publicly audited by anyone wishing to do so.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a slip of paper and a pen.
Sure there is! It's called ballot box stuffing. All you need to do is write a bunch of votes and silly humans can't tell a real vote from a fraudulent vote!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So what you're so saying is Soros is a moron
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nope, but she did pick the three sates that caused the Democrat to lose the Electoral college. Why is it that the only states she cares about are the ones that mattered most for Hillary Clinton?
Careful, calling someone a pussy can now lead to a hate crime investigation.
The actual voting machine can be proprietary as fuck, and I don't care. What would make the election far less prone to tampering is if I could take my voting receipt, enter the number, and verify the vote. This could be done without compromising the secret ballot. You cast your vote and get a number which has several properties: 1. It's not known that it's your number, only that it's the number of a vote. 2. You're the only human being who knows it's associated with you. 3. You can submit that number anonymously online and check that the vote matches up with the vote you cast. 4. If you registered but didn't vote, you can look that up too, to make sure that nobody voted your ballot. 5. The full range of possible numbers is know, so a 3rd party could look up all the registration numbers (once again, not being able to associate them with a voter) and verify that no fictitious registrations were created and voted.
I may be leaving out some details, but the basic idea is verification after the fact, and the ability to contest your vote before the election is certified. A contested vote can't simply by "I changed my mind", although it could be if you're an early voter, and some states are already doing that.
Anyway, the machine itself is a red herring. An Open Source machine that lies is no better than a Closed Source machine that lies, and if there's no verification, no audit path available to individual voters, then it's far too easy to lie.
Wait, really? I mean, I love to spam about how Hillary is going make you get GAY MARRIED, but if he is that's pretty cool. More power to him... to make you get GAY MARRIED!
*sigh* I'm sure I'll find Mr. Right some day so that I too can get GAY MARRIED!
With a voting machine that runs on free software, counties can hire whom they wish to reprogram the machines to conform to new voting laws yet to be passed into law, counties can make changes to their voting paper layouts that the current voting machine software can't parse (perhaps changes needed in order to accommodate more candidates as a result of more people taking an interest in setting policy), counties become less beholden to whatever limitations the proprietors put into current software and more in control of their elections. Those who champion competition and user choice should join the Green Party's push here.
Voter-verified paper ballots are critical to recountable, verifiable elections, but there's nothing wrong with having a machine read or print a voter-verified paper ballot. There's value to the blind and illiterate voter in being able to vote without having to bring a trusted friend into the booth and divulging (what should be) a private matter.
I have no objections to manual vote counts based entirely on voter-verified paper ballots, I think that's an important part of how elections should be run. But I don't see a free software-driven voting machines any voter can optionally use as either pointless or bad. The Green Party is shaming the Democratic Party here both on principle and in practical terms.
Digital Citizen
I'm amazed that people who file for a recount have to pay for it.
IMHO it should be paid by taxpayer money.
Not rhetorical.... serious question here. Have recounts like this, this long after the election, ever made a difference to the results?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> You really do just make shit up, don't you?
I just love these post-fact "refutations" where you don't actually bother to cite sources or anything, even though this information is stupidly easy to find online.
Let's look at the important factual claims here, shall we? There are basically two: that she raised more here than in her presidential campaign and that the vote totals were closer in other states that Hillary won and that she's challenging states that would help Hillary win. This leads people to form the opinion that it's Hillary & co. funding this because it benefits Hillary more than Jill Stein. If we just want more confidence in the final results, then all the close states should be recounted, not just those which benefit Hillary.
That said, feel free to suggest improvements to how we vote for the future. We really should prevent vote fraud of every kind. I still remember just a few months back when Tim Kaine was saying stuff like this:
Source: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498676187/vp-candidate-kaine-trump-is-attacking-central-pillar-of-our-democracy
Claim 1 - Jill Stein got more money for a recount than her campaign:
Here's an image for easy comparison, but $5M > $3M. How do we know she got over $5M for this campaign?
"Green Party Candidate Jill Stein Files for Recount in Wisconsin, Raises More Than $5M for Recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania"
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Green-Party-Candidate-Jill-Stein-to-Seek-Recount-in-Battleground-States-402731286.html
Now, how much did her presidential campaign raise? The FEC has that info here:
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P20003984&tabIndex=1
This currently gives us about $3 million dollars ('net contributions') as can be seen below:
Claim 2 - The challenges are in favor of Hillary
States where we need recounts: WI, MI, and PA - source was quoted above. States NOT on the recount list NV, CO, MN, or NH - I can find no reports of recount requests here. Feel free to give sources if someone is recounting any of those.
NV is closer than PA & WI. MN is closer than PA. NH was won by just 2,732 votes - far less than any state on this list. CO had a pretty small margin too, but it was slightly larger than the three recount states.
I will also leave this here, because of all the #fakenews about "hacking" the election... never mind that MI (one of the recount states!) uses only paper ballots:
You're not interested in having a serious discussion about the issues. You're just a bully who insults people who don't agree with your agenda.
If you're truly interested in uncovering voting fraud, look to all the states with large disparities between the polls and the election results. That should include Minnesota, Ohio, and Iowa. All are in the same region, and all had similar differences between pre-election polls and the election results. For that matter, Utah had an even larger difference, but it's difficult to estimate the true level of support for third party candidates, which significantly impacted the outcome there. However, Iowa and Ohio had large enough margins that it's unlikely a recount would change the result. Minnesota was narrowly won by Clinton, so it wouldn't impact the outcome of the election. However, if you're simply interested in uncovering systematic voting fraud, those states should be considered as well.
Let's be honest here. This is a desperate attempt to overturn the outcome of the election. If the goal is to identify fraud, Ohio actually had the largest polling error of any of those states, and should be the primary target.
However, the result isn't particularly surprising. Trump was making substantial gains in the polls leading up to election day. Those polls are conducted over a span of a few days, so they probably wouldn't capture the full impact of the trends prior to election day.
Polling firms can definitely influence the results of their polls by adjusting the methodology. They have to account for understanding and oversampling various demographics, and the approach can have a big outcome on the results. Polling firms are judged by the difference between their final polls and the election results. When a reputable polling firm releases a result just before the election, other polling firms will often release similar results so they appear to be of similar quality. It's called herding, and it's possible because of the ability to change the methodology to obtain a particular result. The polls appeared to finally come into agreement just before the election, and tipped the probabilities back in favor of Clinton by a small amount. This can probably be explained through herding.
Demographics can explain many of the errors in the final polls and the differences between the election results in counties with and without electronic voting machines. If the goal is to uncover hacking, what's really needed is to examine the machines. Absent additional evidence, hacking is a much less plausible explanation than demographics.
Also, open source isn't an obvious solution here. The real challenge is to provide a good way to audit the results of an election that can't easily be tampered with. Paper ballots can be tampered with or faked, so a paper trail isn't a perfect solution. I generally favor electronic voting because it should be easier to examine voting machines for evidence of tampering than to detect fake paper ballots or destruction of paper ballots. I do believe reputable security researchers should have the ability to audit voting machine source code and hardware. I also believe there should be audits of machines after elections to verify that they generate vote counts that are consistent with votes entered on them. However, I believe that we have to accept the possibility of sophisticated schemes of vote tampering as the cost of free elections and secret ballots.
He doesn't have any facts to work with, what else can he do except wonder why people don't listen to them when they call BS and have to run off with their tail between their legs when someone posts facts?
Speaking of which, you can find exact vote totals and sources above. FWIW, the donation total going up regularly might just be an ordinary dark pattern from someone too lazy/incompetent to make a real funding total. It still makes them look incompetent, though.
Oh, we believe she prefers Hillary over Trump, no question about that. But that preference is the real motive for doing it, or she'd want an audit in states like NH, as well, which was won by just 2,732 votes. Of course, Hillary won that state, so we don't care if that result was fair or not, right? And MI that was recounted? They use nothing but paper ballots.
We know why she lost and it wasn't "hacking" as some of the #fakenews has been pushing lately -
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/
Supposedly there is a 7% difference between the machine tally and the paper tally. They ascribe this to voting machines being hacked. I suggest it might as well be thought that the machines are correct and that the traditional ways of "hacking" paper ballot totals are responsible for the difference.
E Proelio Veritas.
Correct - it's Jill Stein doing the work of the Democrat Party. Her challenge will do zero for her own results. And there are several States that were a LOT closer in terms of results - but happened to break for Hillary. Given her choice of venues for challenge, it's quite obvious that Stein is just carrying the water for the DNC. Probably hoping for her own Bernie-esque $600,000 lake-front cottage courtesy of the Clinton machine...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because she would rather Clinton were in charge than the tangerine fuckwit that currently thinks he's moving in to the Whitehouse.
Anyway more knowledgeable people than me think there was no voter fraud, so the probability is that we are still all doomed.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Are we talking about the Jill Stein who:
-Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard
-Earned her M.D. from Harvard
-Protested with the Sioux tribe against the pipeline in North Dakota (and was charged with criminal trespassing and mischief)
There are very valid reasons to question the vote in Michigan. Realistically, Jill Stein is the only presidential candidate that has consistently demonstrated integrity. Second guessing her motives at this point just proves that the United States is unworthy of honest leadership.
Vote for the lesser of two evils, and evil will win every time.
The concluding statement isn't really reasonable given the facts. The simple fact is that Trump is the most hated presidential elect in at least a half century. Plenty of people have reasons to want him to not win, even if it means Clinton winning.
MightyMartian rarely posts anything of substance. Here's the last few posts, good luck identifying any kind of a fact-based claim beyond snark:
I guess on Mars you don't need to make actual, verifiable factual claims to rebut things any more. Who knew?
Could it possibly be, I don't know, more about trying to get Trump to lose? I mean, I know that he's an environmentalists dream but... Wait, I don't think dream is the word. Hmm, I think the word is nightmare, actually
Maybe the Liberterians should challenge results in the states that went narrowly to HRC
**Life is too short to be serious**
You're replying to a white supremacist, sorry, "alt-right" poster. Please keep up with the stereotypical views of the new reich.
This is a desperate attempt to overturn the outcome of the election.
What outcome would it overturn? If it 'overturns' anything, it was clearly an incorrect outcome. And more to the point, since we're two weeks away from December 9, you can't even be said to be overturning the first freaking part of the process, let alone its result.
No fair using common sense against unarmed Liberals.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Why is it the states that are close in margin are the ones you don't want looked at? Why do you want to stop the investigation?
That's suspicious.
It's almost as if you want Trump to win, and will force us to ignore any questions.
how the folks who know how vulnerable e-voting machines are have been ignored for YEARS. . . . until the Chosen One doesn't win her promised position.
Now, all of a sudden, it's a big deal and we really need to look into this issue because playing fair ( -cough- DNC Primaries -cough- ) is only important when your team benefits from it.
Also hilarious the limited scope of the recount request. Not going to bother in ALL States where e-voting machines are used, just those States they hope can throw a wrench in the whole thing.
Tells me they're not interested in the problems with the machines at all, but rather a last ditch effort to get Her Majesty installed into her promised position instead.
Wrong shitstirrer, you're thinking about George Soros.
If you're going to recount anyway , why bother with computer in first place? And how do you trust the hand counters are getting it right ?
The only way to get a result that all sides agree with is to ensure all votes are counted by all parties. More than one way to do it ... Either state owned machine and some crypto , or actually put multiple machines to count it where each party that got on the ballot can provide its own equipment. That would entail standardizing on a best way to count votes, which would be a good first step.
Fuhrer Stein et al. Communists are just puppets in Hillary's and the DNC's proxy war against Trump.
NeeenrrrNeeenrrrrNeee nrrrrrrr.
Sore Losers.
Stein, "What's your name son?"
Son, "Loser!"
Stein, "Where you from son?"
Son, "Loser!"
Stein, "You Pass! Next Station!"
THBBFT
By this action Stein puts the green party on the map of possible parties outside the big two. Make a lot of noise and news - and if the recount actually changes the election people will remember that in the coming election.
It's a strategic choice. Stein can't win the battle this time since it's already lost but by making a heck of a racket she will have one strategical piece in place for the next election. Her plan is probably to be one of the top candidates for the 2020 election.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Meanwhile, you watch from planet dumb fuck, Trump troll.
You can smell the Stumpet fear of the truth coming out, and the orange bufoon being toseed out.
Nationwide newspapers present a conspiracy theory.
Who are the sources? "Computer scientists".
Why not more focus on who these "computer scientists" are? It's a pretty serious accusation.
But hey, let's just run with the conspiracy theory, and remove focus completely from those making the accusation and their credentials.
AFAIK the call is for recounts in nine states ultimately, but there is a filing fee of $500,000 each time, and not all of that has been raised. I'm slightly surprised that there is such a steep fee as in most western democracies the bar is to offer sufficient evidence to a judge rather than also requiring a financial payment, although phrasing the case would still likely need legal assistance to write. In the case of close results recounts tend to be an automatic step, and although changing the outcome is rare I've heard if the margin changing by a few votes here and there. From a quality control perspective it's a good check to have, as is randomly recounting a district to get a handle on the potential error bars to set the trigger levels for general recounts
Those are the states most likely to have been rigged, if there was any rigging done. She's not going to pick Kansas or New York, there's no reason for anyone to tamper with the machines there.
Those other states were expected to go for Hillary. These three were the biggest surprises of a surprise election, and if there was any tampering done then it was most likely in these states. No, any recount is not going to get Jill Stein into office but it is still in her interests to ensure an honest election. Just as it is for everyone else.
Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs
This is a nonsense argument, because open source does not mean freely available for anyone to download, it means that the customers of the voting machines have full access to the code and can inspect, modify, recompile and (if they wish) redistribute it. That said, this policy from the Greens does show that they completely miss the point. You only have an open and fair election if the overwhelming majority of the electorate are able to audit the elections.
In a UK election, where we use paper ballots, auditors must watch the votes being cast and ensure that they go into the box. They must watch the boxes being carries to the counting stations and ensure that they make it and no votes are added or removed from the box on the way. They must then watch the votes being taken from the boxes and put into piles based on which square contains a cross. Anyone who is not blind can do this. If the sizes of the piles do not roughly correspond to the final tally, then they can request a recount and anyone who is basically numerate can manage this.
Now contrast this with a situation in which you have electronic voting machines. How many people are capable of looking at the entries in the Underhanded C Contest and spotting the malicious behaviour? In that controlled situation, you have small programs and you know that there is something underhanded going on. I'd be willing to bet that under 100 people in the USA are able to audit an electronic voting system and say, with a high level of confidence, that it doesn't contain any malicious code that can affect the results, even if the code is publicly available online. Do you really want to trust your election to the honesty of these people?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Maybe she picked the 3 states that had the closest votes?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Correct - it's Jill Stein doing the work of the Democrat Party.
Or, she's doing the work of a concerned citizen who (a) has the power to do the work and (b) believes Trump will be a disaster.
Probably hoping for her own Bernie-esque $600,000 lake-front cottage courtesy of the Clinton machine...
Oh I see: you don't like what someone's doing so you invent tales of crime and corruption. Well it's obvious that you voted Trump.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There are 2 women that will never be president. jill stein and hilldog. Best get used to it.
shh, your not going to get information past that trucker hat of theirs
Most states have an automatic requirement to perform a recount in either all or parts of the state depending on the vote difference. The state courts can also require a recount, but that require a valid lawsuit.
However outside of this you can still request a recount, the problem is it will cost the states millions of dollars to do this. So a $500k fee is really probably to low as in most cases it won't do anything but waste taxpayer dollars.
What.
So only "criminals" would be capable of finding exploitable vulnerabilities in code that anybody and everybody could look at? And they absolutely could not be found by professional auditors employed by the FEC, DNC, or RNC with the vast resources available to the Federal government, or the major parties that receive literally billions of dollars for these elections?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Nope, just a [useful idiot | tool].
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
And the millionaires that donate to the DNC couldn't possibly have been prompted to donate to this effort. Maybe we'll see another DNC email hack...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There is no advantage to putting a CPU in a voting machine.
Every wire or gear in the machine should be visible.
Anyone who can wire a lamp should understand the circuit.
Anyone who can change the air cleaner on their car should understand the mechanics.
But in the end, it's not about simplicity for people who don't know tech, it's about using low tech to thwart tampering.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The whole election process IS rigged!
What we have here is a case of the Dems/liberals crying foul that Trump out rigged/de-frauded them. So they are paying off ol' Jill to do their dirty work to try and re-rigg the election for them. That is ALL this is about. We all know the democratic primary was rigged against Bernie. The Dems thought for sure they had the whole presidential election rigged in their favor. But Trump out rigged them and now they are pissed off.
Hey Dem's it's called KARMA - and karma is a bitch and she comes back with a vengeance!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
The issue isn't necessarily the closeness of the results - though there'd be little point pursuing this if the states in question weren't close enough and involving enough electoral votes to make a difference. But what makes this recount reasonable is the way the polls were 'off' in such a consistent way leading up to the election - and even including exit polls on the day of the election. If all the polls showed Clinton winning, and all the cases where the results didn't match the exit polls were cases where Trump did better than the exit polls said he did, then it's worth finding out why, no?
After all, we've all talked on this site for years about how hackable our voting systems are, and the only possible red flag to indicate it would be discrepancies between exit polls and the official counts. So if this doesn't qualify, what would? Of course, it's possible that enough people were ashamed enough of their Trump votes to have lied to the pollsters. A bit frightening, but possible...
I'm willing to believe that something real was missed in all the polling - though I wouldn't put it past some of the actors in this election cycle to have tried tampering with the results either. Mostly, though, I think Republicans had less of an issue 'holding their noses' than Democrats did. Personally, I think the stink coming off the Trump campaign was way more noxious than anything about Clinton - and the thought of a wild-eyed Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State is utterly nauseating. But that's just me...
Ultimately, I do think that the Comey letter on top of a closely-contested election was enough to do the trick of turning the election. Throw in voter suppression efforts and the systemic skew of the Electoral College toward small states, and Democrats needed a decisive win to get over the top. I'd also add the Wikileaks releases of DNC and Podesta emails, but at least that information was real, and though illegitimately gotten, added some real info into the mix. The Comey letter, however, was utterly inappropriate, and created an unnecessary, false impression of something significantly new at the last minute. Key word there is false. That info should not have been in the mix, and the FBI had no business putting it there.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this,...
...As for the funding it cannot possibly be the over 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary either...
You think the 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary aren't the Democrats?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
With the announcement today that the Clinton campaign will now join Jill Stein in the recount - I think I pretty much nailed it. This is about trying, hope against hope, to overturn the results of the election. It's pure politics, as you imply (when you state that she "believes Trump will be a disaster"). Especially in light of the fact that, during the campaign, the Green Party endorsed Trump over Clinton; this is Stein fishing for money and her own cabin on the lake.
And people were aghast when Trump wouldn't say, unequivocally, that he would accept the results of the election... I wonder where the outrage is now?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The polls were NOT off if you looked at socioeconomic factors; Nate Silver is no friend of the GOP, and he's completely eviscerated the concept that the results in WI were wrong. Why WI, MI and PA and not NH, NV, and CO which were all much closer AND ended up going for Hillary? Even those "experts" who brought up the concept completely admit there is ZERO evidence pointing to any issues, it's just a "feeling" they have...
This is Stein and the Green Party trying to cash out, bump up their own coffers before the next round of elections, and maybe get a Bernie-esque cottage out of it.
Oh, and voter suppression efforts? Care to list those? I know we have documented proof of excessive voter fraud on the left, typically via absentee ballots (for example, 83 ballots showing up in a Los Angeles community that went over 85% for Hillary). So we have proof - actual convictions - of voter fraud, but voter intimidation? Any proof of that? Why not voter ID? Canada and Mexico both require it - why can't the US?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
IBD/TIPP and USC/Dornsife had WI, MI and PA all narrowly leaning towards Trump prior to the election; they actually were the accurate polls. No surprise at all if you looked beyond CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS. Interestingly, those are also the polls that typically had the election a lot closer than the others (typically just a few percent between the candidates). Polls that had Hillary up big (8%+) at various times were the ones way off.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I suggest that if one state is recounted, in fairness they all must be. With each voter being validated during the recount. Slow and would cost but don't you want to get it right?
Hello?? Where'd all the Democrats disappear to??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
OK, lets have recounts in Nevada, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, and Colorado. If the objective is to make sure things werent rigged, then lets have recounts in all the states including the ones that have been under one party control for decades. Those are the ones that are dominated by machine politics, and are most likely to be rigged.
You're basing your assessment of accuracy on the results as given, the supposition here is that those results might not be accurate. The point of this is to reconcile a discrepancy, you can't just wave away most of your data after you have a result which doesn't agree with it.
The only reason the accuracy of the results are being challenged is that some people feel because, it was different from the polls, that it should be examined. I am merely point out that:
1. Not all polls are different from the results; in fact, three major polls were right in line with the results (and the other polls were even more wrong in NH and NV - but those went for Hillary so we won't talk about that)
2. There is no evidence or even supposed evidence (that's direct from those making the recommendation) about inaccurate results, just a feeling it could be wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The accuracy is not being challenged because of differences from the polls, it's being challenged because of differences between voting methods (electronic vs paper voting). The reason they've focused on those three states is because they were so different from what the polls predicted: Wisconsin in particular had the third largest difference of all states between what the polls predicted and the results, and of the two states above it (Utah and Ohio) neither switched from one candidate to the other. In fact, those three states are the three states with the largest discrepancy between poles and results which resulted in a change of candidate.
But, of course, the real reason they picked Wisconsin in particular for the recount is because that's the state that the researchers pointed out had this difference between voters using different voting methods. Five Thirty Eight looked at this and found two states with such differences between voters using different methods of voting, Wisconsin and Texas, though they did go on to say that this difference could be accounted for with consideration of other factors.
You think the 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary aren't the Democrats?
I don't. To me, and I expect most everyone, the way you used that term referred to the party leaders. Otherwise I don't see why you should be indignant that your fellow compatriots fund initiatives without consulting you first.
Unless Green Party has a chance of winning the election in those states, it cannot win a suit to force a recount. 2 of those states have already certified their vote. So only a law suit can force them to change it. A suit can only be brought to undo harm done to oneself. One cannot sue to fix harm to some other 3rd party (plain English "party" -- not "political party"). There is no way Green Party can convince impartial judges that it had any chance of winning majority of the vote. So it has no standing.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Stein said herself that she believed Hillary was a threat to world peace! A look at her twitter history also reveals a great deal of criticism directed at Hillary. Now the change of heart?
open source machines is just a distraction from the solution