SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:30AM
Yeah. I figure that the best this can do is give a public airing to just how horrible the notion of voting machines is.
It may be able to impress on folks how important verifying the vote is.
(My suggested dept. line was from the completely-unverifiable-voting-machines dept).
.
I put a follow-up item in the queue but apparently didn't make it obvious enough that I meant it to go with this story.
Update: Green Party Launches Fundraising Drive for Presidential Recounts in WI, PA, MI [soylentnews.org]
from the helping-hand-for-democracy dept.
AlterNet AlterNet reports [alternet.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by number11 on Friday November 25 2016, @05:12AM
Stein's got $4.5M at this point [nationbuilder.com] (midnight Thursday), enough for WI and PA. Goal $7M would also do MI.
For those who ask "why Stein?", because since she was a candidate, she's got the standing to demand a recount if she'll pay for it. (I expect Clinton would like to see a recount, but she's not going to ask for it unless there is serious evidence of fraud.) After all, even Trump was publicly predicting fraud. Personally, I don't expect the results will change enough to matter, but it would be good to find out if there are problems. As I understand it, PA and MI are mostly paper ballots, so the recount could be quite effective there. Not sure about WI, where there are a lot of proprietary machines that don't leave a paper trail.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Celestial on Friday November 25 2016, @06:51AM
I live in and voted in Pennsylvania. It's all electronic with no paper trail. A recount would make no danged bit of difference other than to through the entire state out.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday November 25 2016, @04:33PM
I wonder how much Clinton actually wants the results looked at. I have not seen many of the Democratic party's insiders demanding a recount. Maybe they are afraid of their own campaign fraud being uncovered in some of these states. If they both did campaign fraud, but she did more (Dems always saying they have a better ground game), and still lost. That would be pretty sad. Of course if they both did it the media would just say that Trump masterminded the Rep fraud but she was only and innocent bystander to the Dem side.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by number11 on Friday November 25 2016, @07:07PM
I believe that most of the fraud that took place was perfectly legal. Finding ways to prevent people from voting, fake news, the FBI messing with people's minds, etc. Was that enough to throw the election? I don't know. Hillary was a candidate who had been demonized by the right for 20 years, and even without that, she was classic "establishment" in a year where being establishment was poison. Even among her supporters, most weren't very enthusiastic.
I think Dem insiders aren't demanding recounts because they don't think recounts would change the results. I don't, either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @08:28PM
Maybe [Democrats] are afraid of their own campaign fraud
Link? (Do make an effort to avoid Breitbart and FauxNews.)
Here, I'll give you an example:
In 2003, Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold (a Republican and an Ohio elections official) made the vow that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President [Dubya] next year." [google.com]
.
In Wisconsin -this- year, I heard that the margin between the Blues and Reds was about 30,000 and that around 300,000 were turned away due to the Reds' anti-democratic[1] efforts at voter suppression.
[1] Capitalize that if you like; it won't alter the truth.
.
California has adopted an "open" primary where **some** parties allow people who have not registered as members of their party are allowed to cross party lines and vote for **that** party.
The Blues are such a party.
In order to do that, you have to tell the poll worker SPECIFICALLY that you want a "Democratic Crossover Ballot".
(Poll workers have said that they are NOT instructed to make suggestions that might correct your wording; indeed, some of those folks have said that they were given BOGUS instructions to hand out a Provisional Ballot[2] to anyone who wanted to do something -other- than the old straight-party-lines way.
[2] Often called a Placebo Ballot, because the federal law which mandated that they be -offered- didn't say anything about actually COUNTING them.
It has been said that The Establishment Blues in California exploited the confusion to undermine Bernie Sanders in the primary.
I haven't heard anything -specific- about subterfuge on the part of Blues in the General Election.
Perhaps you could provide some details.
...or doesn't that fit your (hand-waving rumormonger) style?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]