5 ms·

A completely independent group, led by Alex Halderman (who is 100% legit), has come to the same conclusion and is quietly demanding that voting machines in cert

A completely independent group, led by Alex Halderman (who is 100% legit), has come to the same conclusion and is quietly demanding that voting machines in certain suspicious states be forensically audited: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-...

thesagan 10y ago
Who does the auditing? How is that verified to be not rigged if there are claims that the election was? Why are audits less corrupt than administering an election? Is it easier to add or subtract votes one way or the other in a recount or audit, etc.? Honestly, I don't know the answers. But I don't like any of this rhetoric. Lots of conflicting reporting going on, and lots of F.U.D.
- themgt 10y ago
  Honestly, analysis of this type (breaking down vote patterns by machine/type and calling out the electronic vote winner) has been presented in previous elections and mainly treated as fringe conspiracy theory. I think it is incredibly dangerous the way this type of talk (which does not look very credible if you believe Nate Silver's analysis) is now being mainstreamed by Democrats, the very people who in the days leading up to the election were setting their hair on fire over the possibility Trump might not respect the result. I could not remotely imagine this type of thing being mainstreamed if it was Trump who had lost and whose supporters were claiming fraud with shoddy statistics.
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    While I agree with you that the democrats are wrong to be pushing this type of conspiracy stuff, I totally disagree that it wouldn't be "mainstreamed" if the tables were turned. Fox News is mainstream, Rush Limbaugh is mainstream; it's totally plausible to see this kind of nonsense being "mainstreamed" by the segments of the media that favor the narrative of the story.
- audi100quattro 10y ago
  There are procedures for auditing counties can have, paper ballots have barcodes which must be unique or fit a pattern. If voting machines have printed receipts (the only sane way to do electronic voting afaik) the printed receipts can also be tallied and must be unique. If there is no paper trail, you can still check the voting machines and databases for any tampering with a forensics/security team in case the manufacturer is a complete idiot who hasn't provided enough security. Given the amount of hacking that has gone on during the election, to influence the election, it is worth investigating at some level for a sanity check. The kind of targeting required though would mean the Russians had to have the best polls out there. Targeting few counties in WI, MI, and PA, (and OH, FL, AZ) enough to tip it to Trump in a electoral college big-way? Doesn't seem too plausible, but I'm no spy.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    > Given the amount of hacking that has gone on during the election, to influence the election, it is worth investigating at some level for a sanity check Vaguely gesturing at "the amount of hacking" is kinda suspiciously nonspecific given that it was campaign email accounts that were hacked, and in very primitive fashion -- wasn't it a phishing email that the DNC fell for? The fact that someone can successfully carry out a phishing attempt against a not-particularly-technically-savvy target is hardly evidence that they can just l33tly h4xx0r into any other target you could name, any more than a car break-in is evidence that a bank was robbed in another city.
lmg643 10y ago
At the risk of 100 down votes - considering the theory that "Clinton outperformed where paper ballots were used" - isn't there an alternate hypothesis that extra paper ballots could have been submitted by her supporters, as a lower-tech kind of fraud? I get that this is a tech site, and we like to think that everything is the result of smart hackers (even the Trump election! because some Russian hacker could be the only explanation), but there are low tech options here as well. The Project Veritas videos, whatever you may think of them, had high level operatives openly discussing tactics they use to affect elections. A few extra paper ballots seems like something a motivated person with access to a photocopier could accomplish.
- morgante 10y ago
  As a prior, I would consider submitting lots of extra paper ballots to be much weaker than manipulating electronic voting. (To be clear, I think the prior on both is fairly weak.) Project Veritas is not a credible source. Edit: It seems like HN has gotten a lot more Trump and conservative since the election. I should hope that reiterating that submitting thousands of paper ballots of a lot more complicated than hacking into a computer system is obvious.
- nostromo 10y ago
  Or there could simply be another variable. For example, maybe rural counties are more likely to use paper ballots than urban counties. (Or any other variable: income, race, geography.)
  - inlined 10y ago
    But wouldn't highly urban counties be more likely to vote for Clinton?
    - defen 10y ago
      Urban counties in Wisconsin use paper; rural use electronic: https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55 https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55 (Dane County, Milwaukee County, and Brown County have the three biggest cities and use paper)
icomefromreddit 10y ago
Alex Halderman is not 100% legit, he's an activist pushing an agenda, HIS agenda, now aligned with his beliefs and political preferences.

thesagan 10y ago

Who does the auditing? How is that verified to be not rigged if there are claims that the election was? Why are audits less corrupt than administering an election? Is it easier to add or subtract votes one way or the other in a recount or audit, etc.? Honestly, I don't know the answers. But I don't like any of this rhetoric. Lots of conflicting reporting going on, and lots of F.U.D.

themgt 10y ago
Honestly, analysis of this type (breaking down vote patterns by machine/type and calling out the electronic vote winner) has been presented in previous elections and mainly treated as fringe conspiracy theory. I think it is incredibly dangerous the way this type of talk (which does not look very credible if you believe Nate Silver's analysis) is now being mainstreamed by Democrats, the very people who in the days leading up to the election were setting their hair on fire over the possibility Trump might not respect the result. I could not remotely imagine this type of thing being mainstreamed if it was Trump who had lost and whose supporters were claiming fraud with shoddy statistics.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  While I agree with you that the democrats are wrong to be pushing this type of conspiracy stuff, I totally disagree that it wouldn't be "mainstreamed" if the tables were turned. Fox News is mainstream, Rush Limbaugh is mainstream; it's totally plausible to see this kind of nonsense being "mainstreamed" by the segments of the media that favor the narrative of the story.
audi100quattro 10y ago
There are procedures for auditing counties can have, paper ballots have barcodes which must be unique or fit a pattern. If voting machines have printed receipts (the only sane way to do electronic voting afaik) the printed receipts can also be tallied and must be unique. If there is no paper trail, you can still check the voting machines and databases for any tampering with a forensics/security team in case the manufacturer is a complete idiot who hasn't provided enough security. Given the amount of hacking that has gone on during the election, to influence the election, it is worth investigating at some level for a sanity check. The kind of targeting required though would mean the Russians had to have the best polls out there. Targeting few counties in WI, MI, and PA, (and OH, FL, AZ) enough to tip it to Trump in a electoral college big-way? Doesn't seem too plausible, but I'm no spy.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > Given the amount of hacking that has gone on during the election, to influence the election, it is worth investigating at some level for a sanity check Vaguely gesturing at "the amount of hacking" is kinda suspiciously nonspecific given that it was campaign email accounts that were hacked, and in very primitive fashion -- wasn't it a phishing email that the DNC fell for? The fact that someone can successfully carry out a phishing attempt against a not-particularly-technically-savvy target is hardly evidence that they can just l33tly h4xx0r into any other target you could name, any more than a car break-in is evidence that a bank was robbed in another city.

lmg643 10y ago

At the risk of 100 down votes - considering the theory that "Clinton outperformed where paper ballots were used" - isn't there an alternate hypothesis that extra paper ballots could have been submitted by her supporters, as a lower-tech kind of fraud? I get that this is a tech site, and we like to think that everything is the result of smart hackers (even the Trump election! because some Russian hacker could be the only explanation), but there are low tech options here as well. The Project Veritas videos, whatever you may think of them, had high level operatives openly discussing tactics they use to affect elections. A few extra paper ballots seems like something a motivated person with access to a photocopier could accomplish.

morgante 10y ago
As a prior, I would consider submitting lots of extra paper ballots to be much weaker than manipulating electronic voting. (To be clear, I think the prior on both is fairly weak.) Project Veritas is not a credible source. Edit: It seems like HN has gotten a lot more Trump and conservative since the election. I should hope that reiterating that submitting thousands of paper ballots of a lot more complicated than hacking into a computer system is obvious.
nostromo 10y ago
Or there could simply be another variable. For example, maybe rural counties are more likely to use paper ballots than urban counties. (Or any other variable: income, race, geography.)
- inlined 10y ago
  But wouldn't highly urban counties be more likely to vote for Clinton?
  - defen 10y ago
    Urban counties in Wisconsin use paper; rural use electronic: https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55 https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55 (Dane County, Milwaukee County, and Brown County have the three biggest cities and use paper)

icomefromreddit 10y ago

Alex Halderman is not 100% legit, he's an activist pushing an agenda, HIS agenda, now aligned with his beliefs and political preferences.