3 ms·
I was excited to read this, thinking "Ok, finally! This is the shit -- the actual evidence that uncovers the actual conspiracy by a foreign government to elect
by HillaryBriss 10y ago
I was excited to read this, thinking "Ok, finally! This is the shit -- the actual evidence that uncovers the actual conspiracy by a foreign government to elect Trump."
Then I read this:
> Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.
- rdhyee 10y agoHalderman continues though: "But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other."
- jfjejxjcjf 10y agoIt's amazing how people can mock the idea of subverting elections as long as it's not their candidate who lost. Many similar concerns were raised during the election by people who hold very different political views than most HN readers, and yet these concerns were written off and publicly mocked. Now the shoe is on the other foot but nobody is willing to point out the partisan hypocrisy. And yes, throwaway account because HN tends to get very uncivil about this subject.
- rdhyee 10y agoVerified Voting the non-partisan umbrella organization that connects many leading election technology experts (including Halderman the author of the piece; Ron Rivest and Philip Stark -- http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/11/22/election-hacking-audit/ http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/11/22/election-hacking-audit/) has been in the business of ensuring the integrity of the voting system since 2003. https://www.verifiedvoting.org/about-vvo/ https://www.verifiedvoting.org/about-vvo/