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.

26 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. "Open source" voting machines are stupid by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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=

    1. Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      You forgot: It exists to make a lot of money for those who sell machines.

      The standard of integrity and validation is higher for slot machines. When the average Vegas casino is more transparent than election machines, there's a pretty serious problem.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course all States have pre-printed ballots for all different voting districts - how else could they offer absentee ballots?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. Re:Two big problems here by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow, 2000 called and wants it's anti-OSS argument back

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Re: My god! by danudwary · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless he didn't. Let's find out and be sure.

  4. Lets call Bullshit by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Lets call Bullshit by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      So you're alleging that the real objective of the Green Party recount is not in fact abstract curiosity about the election integrity, nor even to see if Jill Stein really won.

      What you're actually claiming is they want to see is if a recount would flip those three states to Clinton and give her the Presidency, and in fact most of the donors to the recount campaign are hoping for this exact outcome.

      Well yeah.... that's all actually quite obvious.

      As for them not asking for recounts in the states Clinton won, it costs millions of dollars to do a recount, you can hardly expect them to raise millions of dollars for an action that could only help their opponent.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Lets call Bullshit by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

      Correct because the states selected could change the outcome of the election. I think all states should have a recount but there isn't enough money to do that.

      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.

      Because it's not about Stein, it's about the possibility that the election may have been stolen.

      Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.

      I actually had the same thought and considered that it's quite possible that people across the globe are giving money for this recount because they fear what Trump may do as president.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. yeah.. by starblazer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:yeah.. by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      It's fairly straightforward politics.

      A recount is unlikely to change anything (even the supporters acknowledge this), and the Democrats requesting one makes them look like sore losers and erodes their public support at a time when they're trying to build public support so they can check the more extreme parts of Trump's agenda. They also have a chance of building a good enough relationship with Trump that they can moderate him somewhat (see how Trump's positions changed the moment he chatted with Obama for 90 minutes).

      Trump is also known to be quite punitive, if Clinton asks for a recount it's quite possible he re-changes his mind and tells his incoming Attorney General to go after her on the emails. A conviction would be very unlikely, but no one wants to go through a trial like that.

      So the Dems requesting a recount has a fairly high cost with little upside.

      The Greens however, have no elected officials that lose credibility on a lost recount, so they can ask for a low-probability recount without losing anything but a bit of money.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  6. Absentee ballots should be checked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"

  7. And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is s by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Of course... by cirby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Of course... by ronaldbeal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Stein has no legal standing for a recount in Michigan: "A candidate for an office canvassed by the board of state canvassers or is the office of representative in Congress, state representative, or state senator for a district located wholly within 1 county may petition for a recount of the votes. The petition must allege that the candidate is “aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes by the inspectors of election or the returns.” " Mich. Comp. Laws 168.879(1). Since Stein has no chance of winning, from a legal perspective, she can not be "aggrieved." Hillary is the only candidate that would be "aggrieved" if there are irregularities in the vote, and thus, she is the only one who can petition for a recount. Republican legal teams are already drafting motions for injunctions due to standing.

  9. Why? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    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. . . .
  10. Re:The real motivation by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  11. Quick survey says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re: My god! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nonono, she's from Thuban aka Alpha Draconis. I've explained this multiple times, people! Sheesh!

  13. Re:Two big problems here by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. So much hypocrisy by execthis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:And... it's not the dems requesting it, which i by fgouget · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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... ???

  16. Re:Green party files for recount by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And an entirely different campaign will be accused of being a bad loser...

    Actually, it seems to me like the opposite. The Green Party comes out looking legitimately concerned about the future of the nation, since nothing about such a recount could deliver a victory to Jill Stein.

    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.

    Agreed — which is to say, about as likely as Trump is to keep any of his promises.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Re:Green party files for recount by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Green Party comes out looking like a sycophant of the Democratic Party...

    FTFY.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  18. It's not rigged, you're just LOSING by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Informative

    > 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:

    That moment would not have been as big a moment last night had Donald Trump not spent the last few weeks going around saying that the election is rigged against him. And when Donald says that, he's basically, after a campaign of attacking virtually every group he can attack now, he's attacking a central pillar of our democracy — that we run fair elections, that we accept the outcome of elections and then that we have a peaceful transfer of power.

    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

    Jill Stein, who ran for president as the Green Party candidate, has filed paperwork to request a recount of the votes in Wisconsin just under the deadline, and has raised more than $5 million to fund other recount efforts in the battleground states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    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:

    Beginning Cash On Hand $73,681
    Ending Cash On Hand $58,303
    Net Contributions $3,013,441
    Net Operating Expenditures $3,413,467
    Debts/Loans Owed By $87,740
    Debts/Loans Owed To $0

    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:

  19. Re: When DNC loses vote, legal action follows by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  20. Re: When DNC loses vote, legal action follows by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.