Green Party Calls For Recount, Wants To Push For Open-Source Voting Machines (nbcnewyork.com) 299
The Green party candidate in the U.S. presidential election, Jill Stein, has raised over $5 million in donations to fund a recount in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's loss on November 8th. She is seeking a recount in these three states after computer scientists discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e-voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots. An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: On November 23, the Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections," calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment." In approximately 48 hours (as of 1:20pm EST (GMT-5) on Nov-25-2016) $5,026,516.15 has been raised to pay for a recount in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and [they are] currently collecting towards a recount in Michigan. The Green party also states: "The Green Party Platform calls for 'publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; use verifiable paper ballots; and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results.'" More details can be read on MSNBC news. The Washington Post asks: Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount? UPDATE 11/25/16: Washington Examiner is reporting that Green Party officials have filed for a presidential vote recount in Wisconsin.
UPDATE 11/26/16: Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that it will take part in the recount in Wisconsin.
UPDATE 11/26/16: Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that it will take part in the recount in Wisconsin.
Green party files for recount (Score:3)
And an entirely different campaign will be accused of being a bad loser...
Still, if it's paid for, then it'll be worthwhile: It'll either increase confidence in the results (and maybe get some to accept their candidate lost), or it'll identify weakness that can be fixed.
I don't really expect it to change the results of the election - I'd bet faithless electors in the Electoral College is more likely to change the result than this.
Re:Green party files for recount (Score:4, Insightful)
And an entirely different campaign will be accused of being a bad loser...
Actually, it seems to me like the opposite. The Green Party comes out looking legitimately concerned about the future of the nation, since nothing about such a recount could deliver a victory to Jill Stein.
I don't really expect it to change the results of the election - I'd bet faithless electors in the Electoral College is more likely to change the result than this.
Agreed — which is to say, about as likely as Trump is to keep any of his promises.
Re:Green party files for recount (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Green party makes news this time by driving the re-count. Next time they will be up in the election again and then they may attract the same kind of people Bernie attracted this time - but in the final election.
With experience from what the green party here have done I can just see that it's not going to end well.
Re: (Score:2)
With experience from what the green party here have done I can just see that it's not going to end well.
One nation is not the next. Climate change is the most important issue of all time, and any party without a real plan to address it should be laughed out of the room, if not pushed out of an airlock.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they come out looking like opportunistic scammers and possible Clinton operatives, because they have literally nothing to gain here except money.
What if we made a better world and it was all for nothing?!
A world without Trump is desirable to everyone except some easily led useful idiots who haven't noticed that he is filling his cabinet with exactly the kind of corporate slaves that he claimed he would get out of government, that his tax plan will shit on the middle and lower classes, and that he has no intention of keeping any of his promises whatsoever. He runs a visa mill, even his wife is an immigrant who has to do the job no American wants to d
Re: Green party files for recount (Score:3)
I'm waiting for his tax plan to get written up and submitted to the CBO for scoring, and then watching all the "fiscal conservatives" in the Congress squirm and flip-flop like a trout on the deck of a fishing trawler.
If what we heard about his tax plan during the campaign about exploding deficits is true. Or, if his actual tax plan has any resemblance to what was said during the campaign, which is looking increasingly unlikely through the lens of everything he's already backed away from...
"Open source" voting machines are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way to verify the integrity of the machines on voting day, nor to safeguard the integrity of the polling data between the voting machine and the final tally. Open source means nothing here.
Electronic voting as a whole is a gigantic boondoggle. There are only three reasons for it to exist: People who are too impatient to wait for manual counting, people who are looking to make a tidy profit selling a broken solution to a problem that doesn't need solving, and people who are interested in a way to fuck with the polls without getting caught.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a slip of paper and a pen. Or have people dip their finger in ink like we've all seen done...
=Smidge=
Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Electronic voting as a whole is a gigantic boondoggle. There are only three reasons for it to exist: People who are too impatient to wait for manual counting, people who are looking to make a tidy profit selling a broken solution to a problem that doesn't need solving, and people who are interested in a way to fuck with the polls without getting caught.
You forgot: It exists to make a lot of money for those who sell machines.
The standard of integrity and validation is higher for slot machines. When the average Vegas casino is more transparent than election machines, there's a pretty serious problem.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens-casino-told-woman-43m-prize-slot-machine-malfunction-article-1.2854392 [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way to verify the integrity of the machines on voting day, nor to safeguard the integrity of the polling data between the voting machine and the final tally. Open source means nothing here.
Wait, no way? Seriously? You cannot imagine a way? You can't picture, say, election officers using compilers themselves built from verified sources installing the software into the election machines on election day?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a slip of paper and a pen.
On that, at least, I agree. It doesn't use all that much paper, especially in comparison to bullcrap like the spam that the USPS apparently exists to enable.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, no way? Seriously? You cannot imagine a way? You can't picture, say, election officers using compilers themselves built from verified sources installing the software into the election machines on election day?
You honestly think that these "election officials" would be tech savvy enough to know what a verified source is, and be able to use a compiler? They can't even calibrate a touchscreen properly.
More importantly, you honestly think that they would CARE?
Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
You honestly think that these "election officials" would be tech savvy enough to know what a verified source is, and be able to use a compiler? They can't even calibrate a touchscreen properly.
That doesn't matter. They only need a relatively secure PC (running Linux, BSD, etc so as to get away from Windows and telemetry) with a turnkey script.
More importantly, you honestly think that they would CARE?
Yes, yes I do.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you verify the integrity of the machine that's used to verify the integrity of the voting machine? (Not that this secondary system can guarantee the integrity of the first system in the first place...)
Yes, yes I do.
The same election officials who have been implicated in various negligence and election tampering incidents? Taking data cartridges home, turning in unsealed bags of paper ballots, throwing out certified ballot rolls, etc?
=Smidge=
There sure is! (Score:2)
There is no way to verify the integrity of the machines on voting day
Sure there is! The proper application of cryptography will solve these issues. Only allow signed firmware to run and have each machine have it's own key (stored in an MCU). On voting day after all the machines are put out, you use a simple NFC device to do an authentication exchange. If the authentication fails, then the machine has been compromised. It requires plenty of time and money to bypass the security of one device, much less thousands.
nor to safeguard the integrity of the polling data between the voting machine and the final tally.
Sure there is! You print the voter selection onto a card w
Re: (Score:2)
That's not anywhere near sufficient. The most likely way to hac
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, after all that, there is no way for anyone to reliably confirm, on election day, that the software and data on the machine are exactly as they are supposed to be. Any verification mechanism would necessarily rely on the system in some way, which could be rigged to fake its own authenticity.
=Smidge=
Counties gain freedom with free software (Score:3)
With a voting machine that runs on free software, counties can hire whom they wish to reprogram the machines to conform to new voting laws yet to be passed into law, counties can make changes to their voting paper layouts that the current voting machine software can't parse (perhaps changes needed in order to accommodate more candidates as a result of more people taking an interest in setting policy), counties become less beholden to whatever limitations the proprietors put into current software and more in
Re: (Score:2)
An article [blackagendareport.com] stressing that Democrats don't have a history of fighting for voting rights, aren't doing so now, and how the Democrats (and their media friends at CNN) are still peddling self-contradictory logic about the security of American elections (which are simultaneously strong enough to dismiss any criticism as "conspiracy theory" but weak enough to be interfered with by Russians).
Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Open source would be better than closed source (more far more audit-able both before and after the election, and likely cheaper in the long run), however I agree, the current approaches to electronic voting machines are worse than paper, and still would be even if open sourced.
All it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with ALL of your suggestions is it ruins one of the most critical features of a fair ballot: Anonymity. If it's possible to connect a vote to a person, then it's possible to pay and/or coerce that person to vote a certain way.
Mailing in ballots? How to you prove that the ballot was filled in by the person who's supposedly casting it? Or that nobody was watching over their shoulder to make sure they voted a certain way? This problem exists with absentee ballots already, but they are a small enoug
Lets call Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of folks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two incompetents this time hasn't helped anything.
Looking into other areas of the world the enemy of my enemy may also be my enemy, so in such cases it's better to avoid drawing attention.
Re:Lets call Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won". Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state. Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.
So you're alleging that the real objective of the Green Party recount is not in fact abstract curiosity about the election integrity, nor even to see if Jill Stein really won.
What you're actually claiming is they want to see is if a recount would flip those three states to Clinton and give her the Presidency, and in fact most of the donors to the recount campaign are hoping for this exact outcome.
Well yeah.... that's all actually quite obvious.
As for them not asking for recounts in the states Clinton won, it costs millions of dollars to do a recount, you can hardly expect them to raise millions of dollars for an action that could only help their opponent.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's statistically invalid to sample (count votes with some margin of error) all the states, then resample only a few states whose results were close to but not in the direction you were hoping for. In science, that's called data fraud. You're deliberately casting your selection bias onto the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lets call Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won".
Correct because the states selected could change the outcome of the election. I think all states should have a recount but there isn't enough money to do that.
Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state.
Because it's not about Stein, it's about the possibility that the election may have been stolen.
Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.
I actually had the same thought and considered that it's quite possible that people across the globe are giving money for this recount because they fear what Trump may do as president.
Re: Lets call Bullshit (Score:3)
Remember when Trump was talking about a stolen election and everyone poo-poo'd it?
Funny how those same people are now screaming about a stolen election and massive multi-state fraud...
Re: (Score:2)
Also, her fund raising rates are flat throughout the whole day, and totally independent of average hourly internet use. Somehow, she manages to keep the same fund raising rates at 3am and at 5pm.
Re: (Score:3)
Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won".
No doubt there will be plenty of money available from the same people who voted for Trump to fund such recounts should they prove necessary, given that Trump voters have median yearly incomes $10,000 higher than Clinton voters.
I was recently asked in a discussion on G+ whether I would be agitating for the dissolution of the electoral college if the vote had not favored Trump. I answered truthfully, which is to say that I would in that case likely spend my limited energy somewhere else at this time — b
Re: (Score:2)
No bullshit nor conspiracy. A lot of people want a more open election process, including verifiable voting machines and always having at least a few random recounts. But apparently for a recount to happen on of the candidates needs to request it, and Hillary doesn't want to (she would look like a sore loser and a hypocrite). But if we can't have random recounts we can at least ask someone with the authority to request one.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah... its "over"... but they have the right to request the recount, so they are taking them up on that option.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
Oh well, if the Greens want to waste their money, let them.
To the ACs whining about "They can't accept the outcome"... they are using legal avenues to make sure its right. It's not like the Greens are asking for special consideration because "AWMG RIGGED!!!"
Trump was crying like a 2 year old about everything (CROOKED, RIGGED, WAHH) was so unfair and as soon as he got his way, he smiled and sat contently in the corner. Just like a two year old that got his way.
Let them, they are allowed to request it and they did.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is s (Score:3, Insightful)
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
Fool. Stein has supposedly raised more money for this bogus recount which she can't win than she raised on her entire campaign. Only states that Trump won are being contested, not states that were even closer but Hillary supposedly won. Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".
Re:And... it's not the dems requesting it, which i (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".
So you're saying Stein cannot possibly consider Hillary to be the lesser evil and couldn't possibly decide to verify that Hillary lost on her own. As for the funding it cannot possibly be the over 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary either. For you it really has to be some conspiracy. Just because... ???
Re: (Score:2)
By this action Stein puts the green party on the map of possible parties outside the big two. Make a lot of noise and news - and if the recount actually changes the election people will remember that in the coming election.
It's a strategic choice. Stein can't win the battle this time since it's already lost but by making a heck of a racket she will have one strategical piece in place for the next election. Her plan is probably to be one of the top candidates for the 2020 election.
It's not rigged, you're just LOSING (Score:5, Informative)
> You really do just make shit up, don't you?
I just love these post-fact "refutations" where you don't actually bother to cite sources or anything, even though this information is stupidly easy to find online.
Let's look at the important factual claims here, shall we? There are basically two: that she raised more here than in her presidential campaign and that the vote totals were closer in other states that Hillary won and that she's challenging states that would help Hillary win. This leads people to form the opinion that it's Hillary & co. funding this because it benefits Hillary more than Jill Stein. If we just want more confidence in the final results, then all the close states should be recounted, not just those which benefit Hillary.
That said, feel free to suggest improvements to how we vote for the future. We really should prevent vote fraud of every kind. I still remember just a few months back when Tim Kaine was saying stuff like this:
Source: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498676187/vp-candidate-kaine-trump-is-attacking-central-pillar-of-our-democracy [npr.org]
Claim 1 - Jill Stein got more money for a recount than her campaign:
Here's an image for easy comparison [i.sli.mg], but $5M > $3M. How do we know she got over $5M for this campaign?
"Green Party Candidate Jill Stein Files for Recount in Wisconsin, Raises More Than $5M for Recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania"
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Green-Party-Candidate-Jill-Stein-to-Seek-Recount-in-Battleground-States-402731286.html [nbcnewyork.com]
Now, how much did her presidential campaign raise? The FEC has that info here:
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P20003984&tabIndex=1 [fec.gov]
This currently gives us about $3 million dollars ('net contributions') as can be seen below:
Claim 2 - The challenges are in favor of Hillary
States where we need recounts: WI, MI, and PA - source was quoted above. States NOT on the recount list NV, CO, MN, or NH - I can find no reports of recount requests here. Feel free to give sources if someone is recounting any of those.
NV is closer than PA & WI. MN is closer than PA. NH was won by just 2,732 votes - far less than any state on this list. CO had a pretty small margin too, but it was slightly larger than the three recount states.
I will also leave this here, because of all the #fakenews about "hacking" the election... never mind that MI (one of the recount states!) uses only paper ballots:
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're a piece of work.
Buried under your heap of sources was in fact nothing about how Soros funded this, which one of the things that the GP was complaining about "making shit up". What you have done is make it look like you have a well reasoned, well sourced rebuttal to the parent but you have no such thing. What you have is a long winded argument against something else which you're misrepresenting as a rebuttal to the parent.
Cries of the crtl-left Hillary did nothing wrong (Score:3)
MightyMartian rarely posts anything of substance. Here's the last few posts, good luck identifying any kind of a fact-based claim beyond snark:
Hillary gets to lose 3 more times (Score:2)
He doesn't have any facts to work with, what else can he do except wonder why people don't listen to them when they call BS and have to run off with their tail between their legs when someone posts facts?
Speaking of which, you can find exact vote totals and sources above. FWIW, the donation total going up regularly might just be an ordinary dark pattern from someone too lazy/incompetent to make a real funding total. It still makes them look incompetent, though.
Re:yeah.. (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah... its "over"... but they have the right to request the recount, so they are taking them up on that option.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
It's fairly straightforward politics.
A recount is unlikely to change anything (even the supporters acknowledge this), and the Democrats requesting one makes them look like sore losers and erodes their public support at a time when they're trying to build public support so they can check the more extreme parts of Trump's agenda. They also have a chance of building a good enough relationship with Trump that they can moderate him somewhat (see how Trump's positions changed the moment he chatted with Obama for 90 minutes).
Trump is also known to be quite punitive, if Clinton asks for a recount it's quite possible he re-changes his mind and tells his incoming Attorney General to go after her on the emails. A conviction would be very unlikely, but no one wants to go through a trial like that.
So the Dems requesting a recount has a fairly high cost with little upside.
The Greens however, have no elected officials that lose credibility on a lost recount, so they can ask for a low-probability recount without losing anything but a bit of money.
Absentee ballots should be checked (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the Russian hacks, they were targeting the vote registration data. From that data you get the list of absentee voters and the list of habitual non-voters. When Florida is busy receiving all those faxed votes, it has no way of telling they come from a US military base in Afghanistan or a Russian propaganda base in Moscow. They simply don't validate the origin of absentee votes sent by post or fax.
Ohio didn't send out 1 million absentee ballots (the Republican governor withheld absentee ballots from people who moved within Ohio, i.e. renters not home owners), yet Ohio had a record year for absentee ballot voting.
And it was Russia:
http://time.com/4472169/russian-hackers-arizona-voter-registration/
"Russians Hacked Arizona Voter Registration Database -Official...Russians were responsible for the recent breach of Arizona’s voter registration system, the FBI told state officials in June. He said hackers gained access after stealing the username and password of an election official in Gila County, rather than compromising the state or county system."
This is Illinois's hack:
http://time.com/4471042/fbi-voter-database-breach-arizona-illinois/
Florida was also hit, and likely many more too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/
"Feds believe Russians hacked Florida election-systems vendor"
Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no actual promise by the Green Party to actually spend that money on the recount effort.
For that matter, they shouldn't need to spend much money at all on it. So why is Stein asking for even more cash?
Oh, yeah. Graft. So, Jill, who gave you all of that money? Since it's a political campaign donation, I'm sure you kept track of the names of all of those donors, right? And you'll give it back if the recount fails?
What? No? What a shock...
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
pen and paper (Score:3)
Call me old-fashioned, but I think elections should be:
(1) held using pen and paper only (no electronic voting, no mail voting)
(2) on a Sunday (no conflict with work)
(3) require a photo ID
(4) stain people's right thumb to indicate that they have voted
Two other reforms:
(a) only citizens should count in the allocation of seats and electors
(b) congressional districts should be created algorithmically and have an upper limit on the ratio of the square of the boundary size of the district to the area of the district
Re: (Score:3)
(2) on a Sunday (no conflict with work)
Confirming that absolutely NO ONE works on Sundays.
Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount?
Because orange isn't green.
Mail in ballots (Score:2)
When you allow ballots to be mailed in, who is going to audit that real people registered .. and voted? I mean it's auditable but in real life not practically.
And then there is the electronic ballot .. they need to give you a paper receipt so you can check how you own vote was counted.
Quick survey says... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, maybe I'll do a blog post about this, but the data is surprisingly easy to find. Buffalo county, which uses exclusively e-voting touchscreen machines, and voted for Obama in 2012, ended up voting for Trump by a huge percentage in '16. La-fayette county, Obama '12, Trump '16, all e-voting machines, huge discrepancy in vote. Door County, Obama '12, Trump '16, but much much closer in vote count; optical scanning of paper ballots and not a touchscreen machine.
This is literally the first 3 counties that voted Obama in '12, Trump in '16 that I selected pretty much at random. It does nothing to dispel the claims of potential fraud, nor do the many demonstrations of e-voting machines being easy to hack. That a bunch of experts have claimed it would be hard to do so because the machines aren't on the internet only shows that the only expertise they have is manipulating things on the internet. There are plenty of actual, physical manipulations of vote counts in US election voting history, New York in the 19th century was rife with it for some time periods. Not everything, surprisingly, has to be done through the internet.
There's nothing wrong with seeking not just a re-count, but in checking the machines used for signs of tampering which is an incredibly necessary idea. Secure elections are a cornerstone of democracy, and double checking one already rife with hacking and blatant media manipulation is an obvious idea.
Have these recounts ever made a difference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Al Franken. And of course the presidential race in 2000, if there had been a full statewide recount.*
*Since this site is crawling with wingnuts, no, I did not stutter. A full recount of the votes in Florida put Gore in the lead under any scenario. No, the link you're pulling up right now is not about a full. state. wide. recount, but a county-based one. No, it doesn't matter that that's what Gore first asked for, as he was following Florida law, which allowed recounts by county but didn't lay out one fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough in what I meant by "results".
Did any requested recount ever actually result in a change of who ended up becoming president?
Another possibility (Score:2)
Re:Two big problems here (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, 2000 called and wants it's anti-OSS argument back
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Two big problems here (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like in PA where the claim of "massive" voter fraud has been tossed about for years despite not a single case being shown as proof. Yet apparently not providing proof was sufficient enough for the legislature to pass a law to prevent this "massive" voter fraud.
If no proof of "massive" voter fraud was sufficient to get the gears rolling then there's no reason not to recount the ballots despite the limited amount of evidence presented. You can't have it both ways.
Also, while Michigan may use paper ballots, it still uses a computer to record the votes. Straight from the Michigan Secretary of State web site [michigan.gov]:
All voters in Michigan use optical scan ballots. Optical scan voting requires voters to either darken an oval or connect the head and tail of an arrow next to each of their choices on their ballot. Completed ballots are fed into a tabulator, which scans and records the votes. (italics mine)
That right there is the rub. How does one know the electronic machine is correctly recording the votes? Just because a vote is registered does not mean it was registered correctly. Since Michigan has paper ballots, hand count them. It's the easiest way to see if there are any irregularities.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because open source is brand new and untested and has been proven to be ...
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Agreed.
2) Security through obscurity is a concept we all used to ridicule... in 1998.
Re: (Score:3)
2) Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs. That makes it far easier for criminals to discover vulnerabilities and tamper with elections. Having open source voting machines virtually guarantees that criminals will be able to exploit vulnerabilities and have a much easier time rigging elections.
That argument has been debunked over and over. The real argument against open-source in elections is that all it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because
that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs
This is a nonsense argument, because open source does not mean freely available for anyone to download, it means that the customers of the voting machines have full access to the code and can inspect, modify, recompile and (if they wish) redistribute it. That said, this policy from the Greens does show that they completely miss the point. You only have an open and fair election if the overwhelming majority of the electorate are able to audit the elections.
In a UK election, where we use paper ballots, au
Re: Two big problems here (Score:2)
What.
So only "criminals" would be capable of finding exploitable vulnerabilities in code that anybody and everybody could look at? And they absolutely could not be found by professional auditors employed by the FEC, DNC, or RNC with the vast resources available to the Federal government, or the major parties that receive literally billions of dollars for these elections?
Re: (Score:2)
Jill Stein is a Democrat?
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, but she did pick the three sates that caused the Democrat to lose the Electoral college. Why is it that the only states she cares about are the ones that mattered most for Hillary Clinton?
Re: (Score:2)
Because she would rather Clinton were in charge than the tangerine fuckwit that currently thinks he's moving in to the Whitehouse.
Anyway more knowledgeable people than me think there was no voter fraud, so the probability is that we are still all doomed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe she picked the 3 states that had the closest votes?
Re: (Score:2)
shh, your not going to get information past that trucker hat of theirs
Re: When DNC loses vote, legal action follows (Score:2)
Except that this is being called for by the Green Party.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't expect the Alt-right to get hung up on little things like fact. REmember, we're in the post-truth era now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Feel free to lose 3 more times... (Score:2)
Oh, we believe she prefers Hillary over Trump, no question about that. But that preference is the real motive for doing it, or she'd want an audit in states like NH, as well, which was won by just 2,732 votes. Of course, Hillary won that state, so we don't care if that result was fair or not, right? And MI that was recounted? They use nothing but paper ballots [michigan.gov].
We know why she lost and it wasn't "hacking" as some of the #fakenews has been pushing lately -
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-n [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: When DNC loses vote, legal action follows (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Liberterians should challenge results in the states that went narrowly to HRC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When DNC loses vote, legal action follows (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct - it's Jill Stein doing the work of the Democrat Party.
Or, she's doing the work of a concerned citizen who (a) has the power to do the work and (b) believes Trump will be a disaster.
Probably hoping for her own Bernie-esque $600,000 lake-front cottage courtesy of the Clinton machine...
Oh I see: you don't like what someone's doing so you invent tales of crime and corruption. Well it's obvious that you voted Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
The GOP is a yuuuuge pack of pussies who can't decide whether to be grabbed by Trump now that he's going to be president or be a bunch of whiny little bitches when an orange self-promoting hatemonger with no moral center took over their party.
But it's okay, because he's a star. Here, have some TicTacs
Re: My god! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless he didn't. Let's find out and be sure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like how once the Republicans win, the possibility of investigating any potential voter/election fraud goes out the window. Whereas before the election they couldn't shut up about it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nonono, she's from Thuban [wikipedia.org] aka Alpha Draconis. I've explained this multiple times, people! Sheesh!
So much hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
There's so much hypocrisy in this. On the one hand they don't really give a shit about election integrity and very important things to ensure that our elections really are meaningful and accurate. They don't support biometric voter registration which is standard in many countries now. They don't give a shit about vote weight disparity (in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity). They don't really give a shit about meaningful election forensics.
Basically this is just more bullshit from people who engage in nothing but bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I even wanted the lizard person to win, but the human won and it's pure fantasy (!) to think that recounts would change that. It'd be nice from a perfectionist standpoint to do random recounts, and I think "electronic" voting is crap, but I mean come on.
The only nit I can pick is that vote weight disparity is kind of built into the system here in the USA. If you live in a sparsely populated state, your vote is worth more, which, if the federal government were limited and concerned itself mostly w
Re: So much hypocrisy (Score:2)
She's a useful idiot, funded by the donor class that have been directed towards her so that the DNC can keep their hands clean so they don't look like sore losers. Interesting that she's pulling in far more money for this than she could for most of her campaign, no? Also, her fundraising goal for this effort keeps climbing (over 300% so far [zerohedge.com]), so maybe she isn't an idiot - more of a tool.
Re: (Score:2)
in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity
Vote disparity in Japan has reached absurd levels. Political power is based on population distribution at the end of WW2, when much of modern Tokyo was still farmland. So urban areas are extremely disenfranchised, while rural areas with nothing but a few elderly farmers have disproportionate power. One result of this is extreme tariffs on agricultural products. When I lived in Japan, rice was ten times the American price, and American servicemen would buy American rice at the base commissary and smuggle
Re: (Score:2)
in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity
Vote disparity in Japan has reached absurd levels. Political power is based on population distribution at the end of WW2, when much of modern Tokyo was still farmland. So urban areas are extremely disenfranchised, while rural areas with nothing but a few elderly farmers have disproportionate power. One result of this is extreme tariffs on agricultural products. When I lived in Japan, rice was ten times the American price, and American servicemen would buy American rice at the base commissary and smuggle it off base to give to their Japanese girlfriends. There were "rice police" to stop this, and some of the women were caught and went to jail (they couldn't prosecute the American men because of SOFA).
In many countries, the elderly block change, and progress has to wait until they die off. But in Japan, that doesn't happen, because if one elderly farmer dies, his voting power just shifts to his equally elderly neighbors. Eventually, there will just be one 110 year old rice farmer in Shiname-Ken that will be able to out-vote everyone in greater Tokyo.
Dont they have Censuses and redistricting?
Re: (Score:2)
I personally still don't see why requiring ID to vote is so controversial. If you want an ID card, it's dead simple to get one, and you already have to have one for basically anything and everything you do anyways.
Besides, if requiring an ID is such a bad thing, then presumably requiring voter registration would be bad too for the same reason?
Re: (Score:2)
It's controversial because any time some retarded fuckwit welfare loser can't be bothered to go get off his couch and go to the local motor vehicle office to get an ID all the Democrats scream about how he is being deprived of his rights by an oppressive system. So that's why even former Soviet block Eastern European countries have biometric voting and systems that are vastly superior to the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
It is controversial if it costs you money, because then it is effectively the same as a poll tax.
Re: So much hypocrisy (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. Is the requirement that you show up wearing clothes (which usually cost money) instead of being naked a poll tax too?
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprints don't lie. When you go to the DMV you already have to give a fingerprint. People who get food stamps have to give a fingerprint. It would be trivial and in fact easier to just use it for voting also. But then the Democrats couldn't commit fraud, so of course they're concerned about how people are being oppressed.
Re: So much hypocrisy (Score:2)
I've been to the DMV to be licensed in two states (Oregon, Ohio) and have not needed to be fingerprinted. Only time a government agency wanted my fingerprints has been for a concealed carry permit.
What state requires fingerprinting for a driver's license?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "they"? And what is the "other hand"? I'm not even sure I know which side you're on...
Re: (Score:2)
Centauri Prime - well, that's worrying me if they have dealings with the Shadows already. Watch out for Lord Refa [wikipedia.org].
If Hillary is from Centauri Prime, then Trump is a Ferengi. (Sorry for the different universes)
Meanwhile in the background we have the ones in control.
But I'd worry more about the congress than the president.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know to you it looks like "brain damage" because it makes us skeptical of the magical man in the sky and biases us towards fact based evidence, but we like to call it "education" and "critical thinking".
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity isn't security at all, and it's not like we haven't seen plenty of evidence of just how bad security has been on electronic voting systems.
And really, at this point in time, trying to claim that proprietary systems are somehow less vulnerable is still seen as a legitimate point of view?
Re:The real motivation (Score:5, Informative)
Not true at all.
This election was won by poll-shy white women. Look it up.
Also, look at 2008 and 2012.
Koch brothers poured money into those elections and lost.
Look up Clinton's spending vs. Trump's.
When money is used for a ground game, it works.
When it's used for ads, people go pee.
Unfair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All computers and operating systems have vulnerabilities, but most of the vulnerabilities are on application level not on the OS level.
But OS level vulnerabilities makes the news.