Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Republicans United States Politics

Russian Hacker Conspiracy Theory is Weak, But the Case For Paper Ballots is Strong (facebook.com) 286

On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election. Later he wrote, "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. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why still the case for paper ballots is strong. From the article: Halderman also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the Russian government interfered with election results. There is little disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely, by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all results be audited, as they already are in some states including California. Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Hacker Conspiracy Theory is Weak, But the Case For Paper Ballots is Strong

Comments Filter:
  • In the UK (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:03PM (#53355275)

    We have paper ballots in the UK still. It's made somewhat more interesting by the counts racing each other to see who can finish first. All the counts have TV crews, observers and so on. They're kind-of public. Why screw up a system that's worked so well for so long? Electronic voting is asking for trouble.

    • Re: In the UK (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:13PM (#53355329) Homepage

      The usual motivations are accessibility and some idea of cost savings. Accessibility because blind people need Braille or spoken ballots, and people are worried about improper influence if a living person helps. Cost savings because they know how much printed ballots cost, and can be buffaloed about how much computerized systems will cost (and about the security concerns).

      • Re: In the UK (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2016 @05:45PM (#53356493)

        Printed ballots run through a scanner is the best system. It's much cheaper than electronic ballots, but just like our tests in high school and college you can tabulate the results electronically AND the paper ballot is filled out by the person directly which also creates the audit trail in their own hand.

        Paper is universally easier, cheaper and more secure. There is no reason to use computerized automation for filling out the ballot, just tabulating the results on-site.

        Poorer areas may not want to afford to switch back to paper and scanners after they just wasted money on electronic ballots, but at the end of the day electronic ballots are nothing but trouble and added costs.

        I don't see how paper is not accessible and a computer screen is. It's going to be 100 times easier to print out some braille ballots than it would be to make and upkeep electronic voting for a tiny tiny percentage of voters. The fact is electronic ballots were just a scam pushed on states to generate money. Any smart district would move back to paper and scanners.

    • Re:In the UK (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:23PM (#53355403)

      Paper is certainly better than any currently used electronic method, but it seems like we could do better than that. I'd like to see someone investigate the idea of using blockchain technology to create a read-only database of the election results. The entire point of a blockchain is to create a cryptographically signed set of transactions which can't be altered without compromising the database. Banks are investing in this technology, where trillions of dollars are at stake, and in which every penny must be accounted for. Why not voting data as well?

      This doesn't preclude the paper ballot backup as well, which I'd also agree is important. Computers are too easy to compromise, so I'd say filling out a paper ballot and having a locked down system scan it would be best. You then have the original form, as well as the convenience of computers to count the data, and finally, the blockchain to ensure no tampering of the digital database.

      Are there any obvious downsides I'm missing? We'd need to ensure privacy, but I don't think this is an insurmountable problem. And done correctly, you could even build a verification system for people to check and make sure their individual votes were cast and tallied properly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The entire point of a blockchain is to create a cryptographically signed set of transactions which can't be altered without compromising the database. ... Are there any obvious downsides I'm missing?

        Like it or not, voters really don't understand the technology behind such things. It would sound like snake oil, which likely is not what we want. The paper ballot is the key, as you have already mentioned. It can be filled out by a computer. You can even do initial tallies via a computer, but there must be a verifiable paper ballot that can and should be reviewed by the voter for every vote.

        The think I really want to see is some form of ranked voting. Just having a first, second, and third choice woul

      • I'd like to see someone investigate the idea of using blockchain technology to create a read-only database of the election results. The entire point of a blockchain is to create a cryptographically signed set of transactions which can't be altered without compromising the database. Banks are investing in this technology, where trillions of dollars are at stake, and in which every penny must be accounted for. Why not voting data as well?

        I'm baffled. What do you believe blockchain technology would do for voting? How would it make the system better?

        The whole point of voting is that you need to make the votes anonymous: a particular vote can't be traced to a particular voter. Blockchain could give you a verified receipt for your vote... but what is the usefulness of that?

        It seems to me to be a technology with no evident usefulness to the application.

      • A Block chain database would only be as secure and fair as the security behind it. Thus only public blockchains with proof of work would qualify. Bitcoin is the most secure example to date. You could indeed use colored coins, counterparty, sidechains or other layers to create an immutable voting ledger within bitcoin but I wouldn't want to create an incentive to begin to attack bitcoin anymore as is, and with presidential candidates spending over a billion dollars on campaigns I would be a little worried th
    • Re:In the UK (Score:4, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 ) <evi@@@evcircuits...com> on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:42PM (#53355519) Homepage

      And in UK the Brexit STILL happened despite the media declaring the majority of people was against it and it was just a small group of crazy nut jobs with ties to white supremacy and nationalistic tendencies.

      The media (and the liberal elite as Bernie Sanders called it a few days ago) has gotten way out of touch with the actual voters. CNN was doing exit polls only in primarily Democratic areas. There was only one poll that consistently showed Trump ahead with the margins it eventually ended up to be and that's the only poll that also publishes it's methods, largely mocked in the media even though it had accurately predicted both Obama's victories (where Clinton also lost, against all the media proclaiming otherwise).

      • Re:In the UK (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @04:06PM (#53356163) Journal

        The final referendum polls showed it was a very close race, and the final result was largely within the error margin. Let's be clear here, Leave won by a very small majority. They may act like they had a profound and unassailable majority, but the reality was that it was a close thing.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        despite the media declaring the majority of people was against it

        UK has the same problem as US: the biggest challenge with polls is in guessing who will actually turn up to vote. In Australia, with compulsory voting attendance, the polls have been far more accurate. (And it makes politicians more moderate, trying to capture the average voter, instead of firing up their base.)

        • Curious, do you actually have to vote or can you just turn in a blank ballot if you don't care?
          • You have to turn up, get your name marked off the roll, walk over to the booth, submit the ballot paper into the box.

            If you don't walk over to the booth you will be asked to do so. Whether you end up writing anything on the ballot paper is up to you.

            You can pre-poll. You can use a postal vote. If you don't vote you will be asked if you have a valid excuse for not voting. If you don't have a valid excuse you will be fined. If you are marked off multiple times you will also be asked to explain and can be

    • Re:In the UK (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sperbels ( 1008585 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @02:26PM (#53355743)
      Why not both? You vote electronically, it prints your ballot, you verify it, put it in the ballot box. You get the best of both worlds, you get fast results, and you can go back and check the paper ballots later to make sure the electronic results were accurate.
      • by bongey ( 974911 )

        There are machines that do this both an electronic vote is taken and a vote is recorded on paper which you can see to the side when your voting.

      • Ideally the person should not have the opportunity to tamper with the paper ballot. Otherwise some people would deliberately cross a second choice on their paper ballot just to prove the electronic is wrong

      • answered the question "why not both". Because then you couldn't pull this kind of shenanigans...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:06PM (#53355283)

    Trump already admitted to knowing the election was rigged. Who knew he meant it as a confession.

    The first thing he is going to do is pardon himself for everything so he can't be impeached. Then he'll legally declare himself President for life, and appoint his son Barron as his heir and co-Emperor.

    Bringing the glory back to the Imperial Rome.

    And to think the black guy just handed him the keys. What a maroon!

  • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:09PM (#53355297)

    If the polls were off in just a few critical swing states, the case for fraud would be stronger. But they were off by about the same amount in all states. Locations with electronic ballots were a bit more pro-Trump, but that may be explained by demographics, since areas with more minorities are more likely to use old-fashioned paper ballots.

    • Nate Silver has pretty much debunked this one already: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/ [fivethirtyeight.com]

    • The reason the exit polls don't match the official results might be simpler than you think it is: People might be ashamed of the way they actually voted, and lied about it in the exit polls so they wouldn't have to face that shame to someone else. We live in a country where the vast majority don't seem to remember that it's more than a two-party political system, that there are other parties, and that you don't have to be part of any politcal party to be a candidate in an election. The de-facto fact that th
    • The polls were wrong because they based them on the turnout from the last election. Obama supporters didn't show up to vote for Hillary so the total wasn't what the poll predicted
    • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @03:19PM (#53356023) Journal

      Maybe it's because the plan was the skew the polls to suppress the GOP vote [zerohedge.com] by oversampling Democrats? A few national polls (USC/Dornsife, Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP) all had Trump up a point or two for the last few weeks of the campaign. This is really about sour grapes, and should be an object lesson in not letting a desire for a specific result to skew the methodology.

      One only needed to look at the enthusiasm and size of events to get a good feel for how motivated a base was to turn out. Trump turned out tens of thousands to his events, Hillary dozens to a few hundreds. Pence had thousands, Kaine had dozens. There was no enthusiasm for the Clinton/Kaine campaign and it showed up at the vote.

      Unfortunately, the major polls didn't account for enthusiasm - and that was the deciding factor. Trump got about the same number of votes as McCain and Romney (and had an actual increase in African American and Hispanic votes, by nearly 10% for each). Clinton dropped down by 10 million as compared to Obama in 2008, and 6 million as compared to Obama in 2012. She simply could not excite and turn out her traditional base.

      • by maeka ( 518272 )

        Maybe it's because the plan was the skew the polls to suppress the GOP vote by oversampling Democrats?

        Minorities (not Democrats) are oversampled because they are minorities.

        But oversampling doesn't mean what you're implying. It means if you are trying to accurately track the behavior of a minority group and only have the budget for a limited (often times in the low hundreds) data set you MUST poll more minorities constituents than otherwise would come up, or else (as happened in the LA times tracking poll

        • Basically the polls have been severely politicized. This is Propaganda 101.
          • Basically the polls have been severely politicized. This is Propaganda 101.

            Many polls have been politicized. But many, including professional pollsters that get paid based on their reputation for accuracy, are not politicized. They were all wrong.

        • No, take a look at the polls: they oversampled Democrats by up to 15%, and did NOT correct accordingly. IF you looked at the internals, and scaled for the registered voter Dem/GOP ratio, you end up with Hillary or Trump up by a point or two, well within the margin of error. Polls putting Hillary up 12 points were simply garbage because of bad inputs (way oversampled Democrats) and improper calculations (no correcting for the oversample). It's why USC/Dornsife, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen got it right - they
          • ... and did NOT correct accordingly.

            Correcting is HARD. You can't just apply some simple formula. More Democrats have only a single phone, while Republicans are more likely to have both a a landline, and a mobile, so they are more likely to receive a random call. Democrats are more likely to be home to answer the phone, while Republicans are more likely to be at work or wherever, and more likely to let their calls roll to voicemail even if they are home. Also, Republicans are more likely to hang up on pollsters and refuse to participate

          • by maeka ( 518272 )

            You're mixing terms here.

            Oversampling is always divided out.

            What you're accusing polls of is having a turnout model which over favored Democrats by up to 15%. That's a completely different polling error and there is no reason, nor evidence, that it was intentional.

    • Locations with electronic ballots were a bit more pro-Trump, but that may be explained by demographics, since areas with more minorities are more likely to use old-fashioned paper ballots.

      What evidence do you have that areas with minorities are less likely to have electronic voting? Around here the election authority is at the county level so that would mean an entire county would have to be minority in order to fit your assumption. Is that likely? But is this really an issue because as far as I'm concerned you're better off with the paper ballot. My county still uses the paper fill in the oval ballot and I'm very happy with that. So if you're right then minorities have the voting advan

  • The media lied (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:11PM (#53355317)

    Everything was rigged to make Hillary look better than reality, and it turned into one big liberal circle jerk. Just like when all the liberals read their Mother Jones / Upworthy articles, got so fired up, shared them amongst themselves, then wrongly presumed all Americans felt the same way. Nope, far from it.

    Any of my non-liberal friends are afraid to speak up because most liberals have extremely vile personalities, and they think you are Satan's Little Helper if you aren't on the same page as them. The vast majority of them won't even listen to reason, just spouting off the rhetoric they read from their left-wing propaganda rags.

    Nationalism is back in a big way. First was Brexit, Second was Trump, Next will be Le Pen.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Any of my non-liberal friends are afraid to speak up because most liberals have extremely vile personalities, and they think you are Satan's Little Helper if you aren't on the same page as them. The vast majority of them won't even listen to reason, just spouting off the rhetoric they read from their left-wing propaganda rags.

      Totally unlike you who has just spouted off a bunch of vile rhetoric about how slightly over half of the voters are evil.

      Seriously, who modded this inflammatory shit "insightful"?

      • The reason you don't recognize it is because you're still in your media bubble. Rub some elbows with people in rural America.

        • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:44PM (#53355525) Homepage Journal

          The "You didn't understand rural America" meme is getting tiresome. It's not as if 2008 or 2012 was followed by calls for conservatives to understand urban America.

          This country is a melting pot of many different groups, and demanding that any one group - already a group with outsized representation in government - be treated with more reverence than all the others is exactly the kind of identity politics that those who whine about rural people not being listened to complain about.

          Nor does it really help understanding why a crazy thin-skinned posterchild for the ultra rich who spouts fascist rhetoric, and who on the face of it, whether you're liberal or conservative, appears to be an existential threat to America, got elected.

          • The 2008 and 2012 response was that the people in rural America were evil and the hopey changey shit would put all those old people out of the political calculus until the grave took them, because the Left won.

            That didn't work out, did it?

            • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2016 @02:47PM (#53355853)

              Actually, the reaction in 2008 and 2012 was screaming about a stolen election, about how America only elected Obama because he was black, that America was doomed, and even claims of a divided country. So he barely got anything done, despite all the frenzied accusations of tyranny, he even gave conservatives what they wanted on health insurance reform. So Democrats paid the price in 2010 because they didn't do the left wing option, and you wouldn't know that in 2012, House Democrats were ahead, and in 2014, the real story should have been the plummeting turnout. It was abysmal.

              Meanwhile, this year, with Trump actually behind Clinton in the popular vote, Republicans are already insisting that they clearly won, that America is behind them, that they have a mandate, and grumbling over an imaginary group of illegal immigrants voting. Not that they have evidence, mind you, but believe them, it is true.

              But don't worry, Trump clearly has America's best interests at heart.

              Watch him do nothing, take credit for things he never did, and ignore all the fuckups.

              You need to start paying attention to more than just your navel, HBI, you've got a blindspot.

          • The fuck-all Obama ever did to try to reach the people who didn't like him.

            • I actually remember Obama being pretty bi-partisan in his first term. The conservative reaction was to take what was given and demand more, then point the finger when they didn't get things 100% their way
              • "...we won". "You didn't build that" "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want." Or how about the one where he said health care aka Obamacare would become more popular with time.

                Leave out the offensive policy actions even, the attitude was condescending and he offered people on the other side nothing at all.

                • The Republican legislators would have been compelled to work with him on things if he had gone directly to the people and offered real solutions to their problems. But Jarrett and Emanuel and the rest were convinced that it was a Democratic moment and did all the partisan shit they could during the first two years when this was possible. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"

                  And therefore created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

                  • Exactly! but your wasting you keystrokes here on Slashdot as its now overrun with liberals too young to have even voted in 2008. Let alone having any connection to reality while being brainwashed in high school and college. It's completely baffling to so many young folks why Hillary was so despised because the media willfully ignored her past while trying to roast Trump with anything they could find. Just wait...the Clinton corruption investigations are not over. There's still that little matter of the
          • US immigration is not being operated as legitimate melting pot. It is a meltdown fueled by welfare and by subversion - allowing literal enemies of the existing country that could never be allowed in under various laws.
          • The "You didn't understand rural America" meme is getting tiresome. It's not as if 2008 or 2012 was followed by calls for conservatives to understand urban America.

            Why should we care to listen to any group then? They're all getting tiresome to listen to. If anything, this election was about being tired of being minimized because you don't fall into any of the chosen groups for the last decade.

        • The reason you don't recognize it is because you're still in your media bubble. Rub some elbows with people in rural America.

          How will rubbing shoulders with rural Americans make me reailse that "most liberals have extremely vile personalities".

          Would it be too much to ask for you to read the context of the threads you're replying to rather than mindlessly jump to partisan talking points?

      • ok, I'll admit I'm a bit of a libtard troll. I make a bit of a game out of it. But I do actually believe everything I type, and I've noticed a libtard post that used to get me a guaranteed +5 insightful will shoot up and then get modded down to -1 troll.

        I'll just come out and say it: I think we've got professional trolls (Russian? Doesn't matter really) pushing a right wing nationalist agenda to destabilize our country. If they were just targeting /. it'd be one thing but when you've got pros doing it f
        • translation:

          "Even though me and my kind have been calling you and your kind racists since forever, its actually the russians that are out to get me."
      • Any of my non-liberal friends are afraid to speak up because most liberals have extremely vile personalities, and they think you are Satan's Little Helper if you aren't on the same page as them. The vast majority of them won't even listen to reason, just spouting off the rhetoric they read from their left-wing propaganda rags.

        Totally unlike you who has just spouted off a bunch of vile rhetoric about how slightly over half of the voters are evil.

        Seriously, who modded this inflammatory shit "insightful"?

        Like any group of humans, 15% are vile, 15% are righteous, and 70% are sheep and will do whatever the loudest person in the group is doing. It is unwise to dismiss our shared shortcomings.

    • Everything was rigged to make Hillary look better than reality,

      That makes no sense, sorry. Why would they do that? If anything, they'd want to do the opposite, to get their vote out.

      But bhe best pre-election analysis showed that Hillary's estimated lead was roughly equal to the statistical error in the polling, and the post-election analysis pretty much confirms this. No need for a wacky conspiracy theory.
      http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]
      http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]

  • ... in my VA precinct. Filled in the bubbles then fed into a optical scanner attached to a lock box. It was the actually easier and perhaps faster than using the electronic voting machines we had last election. (State was Blue again this year.)

    • We have the same type of system here. It makes total sense and couldn't be easier to use.

      The only disadvantage I can see with it is that they sometimes make a mistake with the pre-printed ballots and have to scramble to get enough correct ones made up. However, if that's a problem, I think that just giving each polling place a laser printer and having them print them on demand would be better than getting a whole bunch of hackable electronic voting machines.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:15PM (#53355347)

    you need a paper copy that's easy to machine read, yet hard to damage when handling the forms (see 'hanging chads' from 2000)

    You also don't want a paper copy that can be corrupted (an internal printout)

    a printer is just one more thing that can go bad, even if the output is visible to the voter.

    Scantron type ballots are easy to use, don't get damaged easily in a recount, and are easy to tally up for rapid electronic counting (or re-counting if needed)

    Even here in California where we had a LOT of things on the ballot, they work well.

    touchscreen and other pure electronic voting is a techie ego solution, far more complex than needed, and far more prone to failure or tampering.

  • Its quite remarkable that the same papers disregarded as a conspiracy theory before is now a story on the newspaper. I always thought this was an issue: https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]

    Either way, lets hope that computerized ballots get abolished, and the voting system gets reformed, so that each state uses the system maine just agreed to use: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_... [ballotpedia.org]

    Or even better, abolish the electoral college and implement such a ranked system based on the popular vote, but that will probably b

  • The case for verifiable and reproducible ballots/votes is extremely strong and is entirely independent of the current Clinton/Trump issue. The only thing I question is why so many people think that this somehow requires "paper", as if it will somehow magically prevent tampering and beget accurate recounts and election integrity.
  • by zifn4b ( 1040588 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:35PM (#53355467)
    You young whipper snappers are talking about this like it's a new thing. 16 years ago when the same EXACT thing happened between Al Gore and George W. Bush and the same exact call for a recount happened after Al Gore conceded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. That's the thing, Hillary ALREADY conceded. It's done and on the books. Why people keep ruminating about this is beyond me. Life goes on.
    • That's the thing, Hillary ALREADY conceded. It's done and on the books.

      In 2000 Gore conceded, then retracted his concession, then conceded again. It's not legally binding.

    • Why people keep ruminating about this is beyond me.

      because this isn't just about this election, it's also about all the elections after this one. if one election was stolen, that's one thing, if every election is stolen, that's a total loss of democracy.

    • Because it's about the trustworthyness of the election system- these calls aren't about changing this month's election results, they're about reliable future elections.

      Put another way, if someone told your org about a potentially serious glitch in their public-facing firewall, would you wait for a major intrusion before checking it out?
  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:39PM (#53355493)

    The best ballot system I've seen so far is computerized but it prints out a paper ballot which you can examine before you put it in a ballot box. This gives you the security of paper but also uniformity of computerized voting so that votes can be quickly scanned. Frankly, I wish there was a little bit of extra data encoded on the printout to prevent things like ballot box stuffing but it's still pretty good.

    • Optical scan ballots are a bit better because the voter fills in the ballot himself, so doesn't need to verify it.

  • 1. $candidate loses. outrage ensues. this year outrage gets a +20 to property damage.
    2. the electoral college is briefly and vigorously crucified as a source of corruption the likes of which not seen since the Crucifixion of Christ our lord.
    3. $object is seriously flawed. during Bush, it was hanging chads. Now for Clinton, its "fake news." if only that cursed fake news hasnt existed then maybe we could have a good president.

    paper ballots wont help us get past our weird and albeit rather skewed
    • If you really want to fix presidential elections, you need to convince most or all of the states to reform how electors are elected. Imagine if electors were chosen by ranked or proportional voting, as opposed to the winner take all of all but two of the states? It's possible that even under such a scenario Trump would have won, but it would have been a closer thing.

  • and challenges the election. Trump looks like Bush jr x 100 to me. Here's hoping we learned our lesson and fight this time...
  • been to a county in Michigan that didn't already use paper ballots. Did they specify which counties they had a problem with?
    • by JackAxe ( 689361 )
      Michigan's entire system is paper and optical. Which I guess the "computer scientists" didn't factor in. And they've already recounted that state and Trump still won.
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but I have got an impression that president Obama and Clinotns are not going anywhere. They will govern still for a long time.

    It seems to be the global trend, the queen of England and Norther Ireland, V. Putin in RF, Angela Merkel in Germany, A. Lukashenko in Byelorussia, etc.

    I think the time of presidents who left power voluntarily, like Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, etc. is over. Even though Donald Trump selects a team, he could be for a big surprise next year. He may well h
    • she won the popular vote by ~2 million, right? You also know what voter suppression is and that only 50% turned out, right?

      Check what your house is made of (glass) before throwing stones please.
      • by Max_W ( 812974 )

        she won the popular vote by ~2 million, right? You also know what voter suppression is and that only 50% turned out, right? Check what your house is made of (glass) before throwing stones please.

        I am not throwing any stones. I am sorry if you have to worry about your house after this election. I have nothing to do with it, I did not vote in this election nor any other US election, as I am not even in the US.

        I just wrote in a discussion that I have an impression that the world has changed. You are absolutely right, - two million votes, 50%, doping, hackers, what's not, - this is my point exactly. This is how it works.

        The current constitution of the United States does not rely on popular vote,

  • I just want every state in the union checked for voter fraud. When I say voter fraud I mean, dead voters, districts with more votes than population, bussed voters, illegal aliens voting.

    You know, all the things the Dmocrats have been fighting to prevent anyone so much as checking for the past 40 years.

  • Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr

    That's just double-plus-unpossible! We all know that people who vote Democratic are inerrant in all matters scientific and factual! I read it in the NYT and the WP!

  • I think with modern technology the promise of an anonymous ballot being guaranteed is flat out dead. Unless you go through a metal detector like at the airport to screen out all electronics someone will easily bring a phone into the ballot box and with consumer go pros being able to be hidden in a shirt if someone is motivated they'll be able to attain proof that you voted as directed.

    Also voter intimidation in this fashion is extremely risky and unsuccessful. It only takes one person giving an anonymous ti

  • I would not want to see Australia adopt electronic voting. Paper ballots which are properly secured and monitored is the safest system overall. I would never trust my vote to a "black box" that could easily be rigged. No thank you.

  • Jill Stein is funding the recount.
    https://jillstein.nationbuilde... [nationbuilder.com]

  • Photo voter ID - definitely

    Too many people voted more than once. Too many non-citizens voted. Too many dead people voted.

    For example: I know several people who retired to Florida from a northern state. They vote in person in Florida and vote by absentee ballot in their home state. If I know several, how many thousands are doing the same that I don't know about?

    We need a nation-side system to identify registered voters to make sure they're registered in only one state. The system would also check to make sur

How many Unix hacks does it take to change a light bulb? Let's see, can you use a shell script for that or does it need a C program?

Working...