Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the soros'-programmers-screwed-up dept.

CNN Wire reports via KTLA TV in Los Angeles

Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[...] The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides [on November 17].

The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners.

[...] [It was noted that] Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.

Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.

[...] A former Clinton aide declined to respond to questions about whether they will request an audit based on the findings.

Additionally, at least three electors have pledged to not vote for Trump and to seek a "reasonable Republican alternative for president through Electoral College" according to a [November 16 statement] from a group called the Hamilton Electors, which represents them.

"The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense", one elector, Michael Baca, said in a statement, "and I think we must do all that we can to ensure that we have a reasonable Republican candidate who shares our American values."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Celestial on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:51PM

    by Celestial (4891) on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:51PM (#432652) Journal

    This election just won't end, will it?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:57PM (#432653)

    We already knew it wasn't going to end well . . .

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @12:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @12:01AM (#432656)

    This is good theater. Shakespeare himself couldn't write better.

    And supposing Trump is denied, there might be enough chaos to get some real election reform, or possibly plot twist and Sara Palin is elected president.

    Then everyone can be equally unhappy.

    And liberals will still blame fake news for the outcome.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 25 2016, @12:06AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 25 2016, @12:06AM (#432657) Homepage Journal

    It already has. Short of holding another election using paper ballots, which the courts wouldn't allow, there's almost certainly no way to "recount" electronic votes that were tampered with (at least there wouldn't be if I'd done the tampering). Best you could do is void them and I don't see courts ordering mass disenfranchisement like that.

    <sarcasm>Aren't electronic voting machines wonderful?</sarcasm>

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 25 2016, @02:14AM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 25 2016, @02:14AM (#432701) Homepage Journal

      It depends on the machine. Most leave a paper trail. If there's no way for a manual recount, those votes SHOULD be voided and the idiots who run the state should be voted out of office next election.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday November 25 2016, @04:53AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Friday November 25 2016, @04:53AM (#432746)

        Paper trails can and have been falsified too.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by Celestial on Friday November 25 2016, @06:56AM

        by Celestial (4891) on Friday November 25 2016, @06:56AM (#432772) Journal

        As I replied below, I live in and voted in Pennsylvania. We're one of the few states that votes entirely electronically, with no paper trail.

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 25 2016, @06:05PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 25 2016, @06:05PM (#432926) Homepage Journal

          Then your politicians are morons and your state's votes should be thrown out. We need a federal law mandating a paper trail; paper is a lot harder to hack than bits. In Illinois, you mark a paper ballot, which is inserted into the computer, where it's coun ted and stored.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Hairyfeet on Friday November 25 2016, @06:05AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday November 25 2016, @06:05AM (#432765) Journal

      Besides the whole thing is bullshit, as multiple pollsters have pointed out Stein is ignoring demographic and education data to make her bullshit seem plausible...gee someone on the left ignoring reality because it doesn't follow her narrative...why am I not surprised?

      Anyway if you look at both the demographics and age/education level of the areas in question? They fall right into line with the rest of the USA, with the more rural, elderly, and HS educated voting Trump while the urban college educated voted HRC. Is there anybody surprised by this, really?

      And what everyone should be ROYALLY PISSED about is those in the electoral college refusing to do their fucking jobs, does everybody here realize they just said "We don't give a fuck what you peasants want, you didn't vote as we wished so we are gonna ignore your votes"? Everyone does realize this, right? The voters in those states just had their votes STOLEN by people they did NOT elect, have NO control over, and who are obviously not beholden to the people. This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 25 2016, @09:46AM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 25 2016, @09:46AM (#432803) Journal

        And what everyone should be ROYALLY PISSED about is those in the electoral college refusing to do their fucking jobs, does everybody here realize they just said "We don't give a fuck what you peasants want, you didn't vote as we wished so we are gonna ignore your votes"? Everyone does realize this, right? The voters in those states just had their votes STOLEN by people they did NOT elect, have NO control over, and who are obviously not beholden to the people. This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

        Wow, just about everything in this paragraph is exactly opposite to the truth. Let's break it down shall we?

        those in the electoral college refusing to do their fucking jobs

        Their job is to vote for the next president, according to their own conscience. That's why they exist at all. It even says it right there in The Fine Summary: "The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense." If they don't get to exercise some level of discretion in their voting, why have them at all? They would be completely redundant.

        so we are gonna ignore your votes ... The voters in those states just had their votes STOLEN by

        No, their votes are not being stolen or ignored. They voted for those electors, and those are the electors they got.

        people they did NOT elect, have NO control over, and

        who are obviously not beholden to the people.

        They are beholden to whatever oath, promise or contract they agreed to when they took on the role of elector. I'm willing to bet that the content of that text prioritises defending the constitution and the well-being of the country above blind, robotic obedience to the will of the electorate.

        This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

        I was in error above: When I said "Just about everything in this paragraph is exactly opposite to the truth", I should have said "absolutely everything in this paragraph is exactly opposite to the truth."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:24PM (#433000)

          Their job is to vote for the next president, according to their own conscience. [...] If they don't get to exercise some level of discretion in their voting, why have them at all?

          The issue is that voters are presented a slate of choices marked "electors for [SPECIFIC NAMES]". If someone is given resources for a specific, identifiable purpose and that person runs off and uses those resources for something else, that's called theft by conversion, if not just straight-up pre-planned fraud.

          I know there are cases where electors can weasel-word their way past the elector-election process, but there is a serious issue here (among many, many, many others) if what is presented on the "menu" doesn't match the "ingredients".

          They are beholden to whatever oath, promise or contract they agreed to when they took on the role of elector. I'm willing to bet that the content of that

          Translation: you don't know.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:57AM (#433147)

            The issue is that voters are presented a slate of choices marked "electors for [SPECIFIC NAMES]".

            They're not marked "electors for [SPECIFIC NAME]", they're marked "electors from [political party that won the popular vote]", and its their duty and responsibility to refuse to vote for a candidate if they're utterly incompetent or will damage the country or constitution. Or, in Alexander Hamilton's words, the duty of the electoral college is to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”, to preserve “the sense of the people,” and ensure that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday November 27 2016, @06:02AM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday November 27 2016, @06:02AM (#433549)

        This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

        Yes you can. You can have the one with the most votes not win the election.

        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:53PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:53PM (#433622) Journal

          Sigh you DO know we do it the current way for a REASON, yes? Because if we didn't do it this way we would truly have taxation without representation as it would require only 3 states, NY, CA, and TX, to vote together as a block to completely control the other 47 states. Wouldn't matter what the other states wanted, wouldn't matter what their people thought, because they wouldn't have enough population to challenge them. This would also encourage the crap we are seeing now like "sanctuary cities" because all that would matter is how many people you could get into your state to give you more political power.

          Oh and just FYI if you remove CA, a state where they refuse to allow voter ID and have made it clear they have no problem [dailycaller.com] with illegals voting [wordpress.com]? Then suddenly HRC loses. Gee, a a state with millions of illegals and a political machine that courts them actually voting against someone who is gonna make them actually follow the law and take away federal funding for sanctuary cities....wow who would have thought?

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 28 2016, @10:57PM

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday November 28 2016, @10:57PM (#434270)

            Sigh you DO know we do it the current way for a REASON, yes? Because if we didn't do it this way we would truly have taxation without representation as it would require only 3 states, NY, CA, and TX, to vote together as a block to completely control the other 47 states. Wouldn't matter what the other states wanted, wouldn't matter what their people thought, because they wouldn't have enough population to challenge them.

            Together, CA, NY and TX control only 122 electoral votes, far from enough to win the election by themselves. They also represent about 27% of the US population, roughly 85,000,000 million people. Let's create a theoretical situation based on your supposition that NY, California and Texas could vote as a bloc to completely control the other states. Assume that every voter in those three states voted for Candidate A. Then let's assume that in every other state, Candidate B won by only one vote. In that case, a little over 100,000,000 people (assuming the total population of each state is fairly represented by registered voters) just outvoted over 200,000,000 million people. Essentially 49 people outvoted them. You can win 11 of the 12 most populous states (exclude NC for this theoretical application) unanimously, representing 268 electoral votes and roughly 56% of the US population, and a win in every other state by one vote would mean that roughly 250,000,000* out of 317,000,000 would not be represented by who they voted for, with the 39 winning votes cancelling 250,000,000 votes. The Electoral College is tyranny of the minority.
            *The 56% plus half of the population in the remaining states.

  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 25 2016, @02:44AM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Friday November 25 2016, @02:44AM (#432711)

    Well, Trump DID always say the election was rigged. He warned you. Problem was that the wrong people listened. :D

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 25 2016, @09:54AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 25 2016, @09:54AM (#432807) Journal

      You know I did wonder, before the results were out, whether all his accusations of vote rigging and refusal to accept the results was in fact a cunning trap, to box Hilary and her supporters into a corner. Think about it. If the Dems do suspect cheating, they are now going to look pretty stupid now crying foul after all the outrage they (rightfully) displayed about Trump refusing to accept the results and his pre-emptive accusations of cheating.

      But there again, if there were to be vote-rigging, which side do you really think would be guilty? The links between Diebold and the Republican party are many and well-known. Wasn't there a leaked document or something back in the Bush era when the head of Diebold promised to "deliver" the election to the Republican candidate?

      • (Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday November 25 2016, @09:47PM

        by Nollij (4559) on Friday November 25 2016, @09:47PM (#433005)

        You are thinking of Walden O'Dell [wikipedia.org].
        While the concern is legitimate, it wasn't the smoking gun that many remember.