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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @01:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @01:37AM (#432682)

    This seems like a good spot to put this always-popular gem:
    Voting Machines [xkcd.com]

    .
    I disagree with using machines at any level in elections.

    If we ever get ranked voting, I may temper my position.
    N.B. This would still not include "voting machines".
    ...and I certainly disfavor any machine method that isn't triple-redundant.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday November 25 2016, @05:01AM

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday November 25 2016, @05:01AM (#432749)

    Indeed; there's no good reason for a voting machine to be a general purpose computer. It could just as well, if not better, be made with a handful of wires and relays. Unless of course you need to play Doom on it.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday November 25 2016, @11:32AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 25 2016, @11:32AM (#432825) Journal
    Stalin said that it doesn't matter who casts the votes, only who counts them. This is why, in relatively free countries, we make sure that any candidate and their representatives can audit the election. When you start to have computerised voting, you go from a situation where anyone can audit to one where only a handful of people can. Contrast the skills required to watch votes being deposited in a box, watch the box move to the counting centre, watch people take the votes out of the boxes and watch people put them in piles based on where the cross was marked with the expertise required to audit a complex piece of software to ensure that it does exactly what it claims. I'd be surprised if there are 100 people in the USA with the expertise to do the latter with a very high degree of confidence (though, with some of the voting machines, a lot more who can point to at least one of the ways in which they're vulnerable to compromise). How happy are you with the idea that an election should depend on the honesty of around 100 people?
    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @06:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @06:57PM (#432957)

      Contrast the skills required to [verify paper ballots vs] the expertise required to audit a complex piece of software to ensure that it does exactly what it claims

      I have been meaning to submit this story but haven't found the time to investigate more thoroughly and write it up:

      Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting has been alerted by those technologists who have investigated that the voting machines contain a FINANCIAL app.
      Why would that be needed??

      For the tally, the vote of a guy who votes for $Party_D_Candidate, for example, is assigned a value of 0.5.
      The vote of a guy who votes for $Party_R_Candidate is assigned a value of 1.5.

      The total vote count is 2.0 (with the decimal part not visible), but votes for the R candidate have been weighted more heavily. [google.com]

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:56PM (#432869)

    We use optical scanners. The results could be spot checked with open source machines to detect any funny business.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @07:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @07:09PM (#432965)

      I have seen and heard reports of ballot scanners giving different results when the SAME ballots are run through multiple times.

      The touchscreens also require "calibration" and have repeatedly been reported not doing what was expected afterwards.

      Dump the machines.
      The soonest that the results will take effect is January 1 (referendums) and January 20 (the presidency).
      What's the big fucking hurry to get totals?
      Getting it done PROPERLY should be much more important than getting it done quickly.
      $DIETY damn corporate media.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]