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.
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=
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.
Unless he didn't. Let's find out and be sure.
Except that this is being called for by the Green Party.
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.
Security through obscurity isn't security at all, and it's not like we haven't seen plenty of evidence of just how bad security has been on electronic voting systems.
And really, at this point in time, trying to claim that proprietary systems are somehow less vulnerable is still seen as a legitimate point of view?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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"
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!
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...
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.
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. . . .
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.
Not true at all.
This election was won by poll-shy white women. Look it up.
Also, look at 2008 and 2012.
Koch brothers poured money into those elections and lost.
Look up Clinton's spending vs. Trump's.
When money is used for a ground game, it works.
When it's used for ads, people go pee.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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)
Nonono, she's from Thuban aka Alpha Draconis. I've explained this multiple times, people! Sheesh!
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
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.
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
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... ???
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.
Some fat shitbag with "Trump" tattooed across their forehead is not going to present a credible threat in a fist-fight.
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?
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
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:
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
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?
Maybe the Liberterians should challenge results in the states that went narrowly to HRC
**Life is too short to be serious**
No fair using common sense against unarmed Liberals.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Centauri Prime - well, that's worrying me if they have dealings with the Shadows already. Watch out for Lord Refa.
If Hillary is from Centauri Prime, then Trump is a Ferengi. (Sorry for the different universes)
Meanwhile in the background we have the ones in control.
But I'd worry more about the congress than the president.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
All computers and operating systems have vulnerabilities, but most of the vulnerabilities are on application level not on the OS level.
But OS level vulnerabilities makes the news.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
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
I like how once the Republicans win, the possibility of investigating any potential voter/election fraud goes out the window. Whereas before the election they couldn't shut up about it.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I know to you it looks like "brain damage" because it makes us skeptical of the magical man in the sky and biases us towards fact based evidence, but we like to call it "education" and "critical thinking".
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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.
If you need to "find out to be sure" you're one of those lunatics still in denial. I'd punch you in the face if it were legal, but unfortunately even blunt force trauma cannot reverse the brain damage that liberalism has already done.
Did you apply the same standard to Birthers (like Trump) who couldn't get over it that Obama won TWICE?
shh, your not going to get information past that trucker hat of theirs
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.
open source machines is just a distraction from the solution
and biases us towards fact based evidence
Such as the evidence for the use of vaccines?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?