Alex Halderman Clarifies: Not Sure If Election Was Hacked, But, Uh, Shouldn't Someone Be Checking To Make Sure?
from the that's-a-good-point dept
So lots of people have been discussing the story claiming that some e-voting experts believe the Clinton campaign should be asking for a recount in certain battleground states, where it’s possible there were some e-voting irregularities. As we noted in our post, the story would barely be worth mentioning if one of the people involved wasn’t Alex Halderman, a computer science professor we’ve been talking about for nearly a decade and a half, going back to when he was a student. Halderman is basically the expert on e-voting security — so when he says something, it’s worth paying attention.
Halderman has now posted something of a follow-up to the NY Magazine article clarifying his views and what he’s suggesting. He’s not saying there’s evidence of a hack, but basically saying that no one knows if there was a hack or not, and because of that, there should be a recount as a way to audit the results to see if there were any irregularities.
After the election, human beings can examine the paper to make sure the results from the voting machines accurately determined who won. Just as you want the brakes in your car to keep working even if the car?s computer goes haywire, accurate vote counts must remain available even if the machines are malfunctioning or attacked. In both cases, common sense tells us we need some kind of physical backup system. I and other election security experts have been advocating for paper ballots for years, and today, about 70% of American voters live in jurisdictions that keep a paper record of every vote.
There?s just one problem, and it might come as a surprise even to many security experts: no state is planning to actually check the paper in a way that would reliably detect that the computer-based outcome was wrong. About half the states have no laws that require a manual examination of paper ballots, and most other states perform only superficial spot checks. If nobody looks at the paper, it might as well not be there. A clever attacker would exploit this.
There?s still one way that some of this year?s paper ballots could be examined. In many states, candidates can petition for a recount.
So, in effect, Halderman isn’t saying that he’s got evidence of e-voting fraud, but is simply arguing that if no one checks, no one will ever know. So we should check in order to be sure that there wasn’t hacking. That’s… pretty sensible.
Examining the physical evidence in these states???even if it finds nothing amiss???will help allay doubt and give voters justified confidence that the results are accurate. It will also set a precedent for routinely examining paper ballots, which will provide an important deterrent against cyberattacks on future elections. Recounting the ballots now can only lead to strengthened electoral integrity, but the window for candidates to act is closing fast.
Basically, the only way we can actually get an effective audit to see if there were any voting irregularities is to ask for a recount. The problem, of course, is a political one. If the Clinton campaign does call for a recount, it will immediately be seen as a political play, and lead to a ton of negative publicity. My guess is that the campaign won’t want to go there. If we lived in a time where people were intellectually honest, the campaign could present it exactly the way Halderman has framed it — not as a claim that they believe fraud happened, but rather as a way to ensure that the e-voting machines were accurate and not manipulated — but does anyone think that the press (either those that supported or those that opposed Clinton) would treat it that way? It would become a complete mess in about two-and-a-half seconds.
And, that’s unfortunate. Because as Halderman points out (and, like us, has been pointing out for over a decade), it absolutely is possible to hack most e-voting machines. Especially if the attacker is determined enough to do so:
Here?s one possible scenario. First, the attackers would probe election offices well in advance in order to find ways to break into their computers. Closer to the election, when it was clear from polling data which states would have close electoral margins, the attackers might spread malware into voting machines in some of these states, rigging the machines to shift a few percent of the vote to favor their desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during pre-election tests, do its dirty business during the election, then erase itself when the polls close. A skilled attacker?s work might leave no visible signs???though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from pre-election polls.
Could anyone be brazen enough to try such an attack? A few years ago, I might have said that sounds like science fiction, but 2016 has seen unprecedented cyberattacks aimed at interfering with the election. This summer, attackers broke into the email system of the Democratic National Committee and, separately, into the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton?s campaign chairman, and leaked private messages. Attackers infiltrated the voter registration systems of two states, Illinois and Arizona, and stole voter data. And there?s evidence that hackers attempted to breach election offices in several other states.
In all these cases, Federal agencies publicly asserted that senior officials in the Russian government commissioned these attacks. Russia has sophisticated cyber-offensive capabilities, and has shown a willingness to use them to hack elections. In 2014, during the presidential election in Ukraine, attackers linked to Russia sabotaged the country?s vote-counting infrastructure and, according to published reports, Ukrainian officials succeeded only at the last minute in defusing vote-stealing malware that was primed to cause the wrong winner to be announced. Russia is not the only country with the ability to pull off such an attack on American systems???most of the world?s military powers now have sophisticated cyberwarfare capabilities.
So, yes, it would be good if the votes here were reviewed, if only as an opportunity to explore the potential problems of e-voting machines, rather than as a political ploy. The only problem is that everyone would see it as a political ploy and with political ploys comes general dumpster fires of idiocy.
Filed Under: alex halderman, audits, democracy, donald trump, e-voting, hillary clinton, voting
Comments on “Alex Halderman Clarifies: Not Sure If Election Was Hacked, But, Uh, Shouldn't Someone Be Checking To Make Sure?”
Who gets to petition?
Is the petition open to anyone on the ballot, or just to a person who is within a certain percentage of the winner? Because this is somewhere that I think the Libertarian or Green parties could play an important role, if the name just needs to be on the ticket.
Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
I read that she said she would ask for a recount in battleground states if she could raise the money. I wouldn’t be shocked to see her suddenly get that money and make the request, for exactly the reasons you stated. HRC couldn’t do it without claims of hypocritical politicking, but Stein’s already considered a bit kooky, so what has she got to lose?
Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
She needs to raise $2.5M, it’s doubtful she’ll make it by Friday.
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
Re: Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
On second thought, donations appear to be coming in at a fast clip.
Re: Re: Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
Wow… this is getting better/faster funding than her election campaign!
Re: Re: Re:2 Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
From what I’ve seen, Stein really didn’t have a chance of making a real dent in the election, and she has views/positions that alienate some even among those technically on her part of the political spectrum.
But, a recount of this controversial set of results is something that appeals to a lot of people, even those who would never have voted for her, let alone funded her.
Re: Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
“She needs to raise $2.5M, it’s doubtful she’ll make it by Friday.”
For the record, a quick look at the site shows the $2.5 million has been raised, funding a Wisconsin recount and the target is now $4.5m to fund Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not bad at all!
Re: Re: Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
If anything, that is a very positive thing for democracy in USA. Public funding of due dilligence in the democratic process is never a bad thing.
Out of interest: How has her message been spread? Has the mainstream media carried it or is it mostly through alt-left sources?
Re: Re: Re:2 Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
“Public funding of due dilligence in the democratic process is never a bad thing.”
Shouldn’t the taxes already paying for the officials overseeing the process be doing this? That’s already public funding. It’s a little disturbing that they will only do their jobs properly if citizens pay more money out of their own pockets to force them to.
“Has the mainstream media carried it or is it mostly through alt-left sources?”
If you want to apply silly labels, you can pretend what you want about the involved sources.
For the record, I’ve only personally read about it in the above comment and on Slashdot, but not having a vote in this I’m probably not anywhere near the target audience. Also for the record, it appears to have just topped $3m.
Re: Re: Re:3 Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
Re: “Public funding of due dilligence in the democratic process is never a bad thing.”
Not sure how “public” it is. My thinking is that this is Jill Stein being used as a cats paw by the DNC. Which is a solid reason for bouncing her from her position.
Either that, or she is trying to bring the vote that supported HRC for no other reason than sexism, on board the Green Party. There are ways to do this that don’t involve selling out the party.
I agree, an investigation should take place. But Jill Stein doing it, suggests she is willing to subordinate her party either to the DNC, or to the feminist fruit loop patrol. Either case presents untenable administrative problems for the Greens.
I’d like to support the Greens. But this kind of move gains nothing, and looses quite a bit. And 1% against the big parties in THIS race, is a really shitty performance. So the Greens should be considering how much was outlayed for national registrations, vs. how much of a dent they made.
I have no idea WTF is going on here. But it would seem to be good for everybody BUT the Green Party.
Re: Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
George Soros will pay it. He is behind the whole thing.
Re: Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
Found it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/jill-stein-citing-hacking-attacks-calls-for-recounts-in-three-states/
“While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation”
Not Sure If Election Was Hacked, But, Uh, Shouldn’t Someone Be Checking To Make Sure?
I gathered this from the NYT article the first go-round.
Evidence be damned… full speed ahead!!!
Funny what would be happening if the roles were reversed.
Re: Re:
You mean with the guy and his supporter who have been claiming the election is rigged and hacked all along? Yeah, if he lost, i am sure things would be even more hilarious than they are now.
It doesn’t matter. All digital voting should be checked against paper, period. It should have been normal part of the process for quite a few presidential cycles by now, never mind all the others. Like since the first awful e-voting machines hit the market. This isn’t news, it just bears repeating after an election cycle when a few more people might actually pay attention for a few more seconds.
Re: Re: Re:
Yup, it is ridiculous that verification is not standard practice in all elections, federal and state levels. But considering how gerrymandering is allowed and other more outrageous methods of disenfranchisement, it is not too far out of the realm of possibilities that yes, it could be that some assholes decided that what they want out weighs everyone else – is it asking too much to even have a look? Apparently yes. Because you are not a patriot if you think ill of the trumpster, and you will be vilified, possibly worse.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, it’s sort of interesting that there were considerable suggestions of voter suppression in four key states, as well as …interesting…e-voting errors on election Day for those same states in counties that effectively decided the election.
WE should be making sure that the physical recount matches the tallied number of votes.
This would only matter if there was no electoral college.
Re: You have it backwards
The IRS should be demanding an audit.
Lost revenue in next 4+ years.
Re: Re:
Just the opposite.
While there are still votes being counted, Clinton currently appears to be up by about 2 million votes in the popular vote ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/21/election-results-electoral-popular-votes-trump-clinton/94214826/ ). That means that 1 million Clinton votes would have had to have been flipped to Trump in order to cancel out her popular vote victory.
But she lost Pennsylvania by approximately 60,000 votes, Michigan by about 13,000, and Wisconsin by about 30,000 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2016 , and keep in mind that these aren’t final numbers). Those 3 states combined have 46 electoral votes, which would be enough to flip the election from Trump to Clinton.
So, popular vote, you’re looking at a difference of 2 million votes, whereas with the electoral college, a difference of a total of 103,000 votes determined the outcome in 3 decisive states. In other words, to change the outcome of the popular vote, you’d have to change about a million votes, whereas in order to change the electoral outcome, you’d only have to change a little more than 50,000. That’s a factor of 20.
In short, if someone were attempting to rig an election — and it bears repeating that there’s no evidence that this happened, only that voting machines are so insecure that it could happen — rigging the electoral vote is far easier than rigging the popular vote.
Re: Re: Re:
There is no evidence because there is no paper trail?
Is that what you are saying?
Lack of evidence is not proof of anything other than proof there is a lack of evidence. Perhaps no one has looked yet? Why not? Were they told to not look? By whom? Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I’m saying there’s no evidence because there’s no evidence. (Which, by the way, was a parenthetical half-sentence in a lengthy post about the popular vote versus the electoral college, but thanks ever so much for latching onto it.)
I am not going to explain basic Aristotelean logic to you. You can’t prove a negative.
Soooo you’re just making shit up, at this point. Without evidence.
I’m not saying it’s futile to look for evidence. Indeed, I fully support Halderman in his suggestion for an audit. And if an audit does produce evidence that tampering occurred, then clearly that will need to be handled.
And, moreover, there absolutely is evidence that voting machines are vulnerable. We shouldn’t be using them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The point is – verify the results of every election – no matter what.
There is no need for evidence, just verify the results. What’s the problem?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Which is a perfectly reasonable point which has absolutely nothing to do with my post that you were replying to.
Re: Re:
Umm, it would still matter in a national popular vote.
It would just require infecting more voting machines.
Who would not want an investigation?
If the election actually were hacked, then the hackers are the ones who would not want an investigation.
Re: Who would not want an investigation?
Not necessarily.
Hypothetically, let’s say you’re a nation state hostile to the US.
Getting your preferred candidate elected is good, but destroying faith in the democratic process of the US is even better.
Re: Re: Who would not want an investigation?
“Getting your preferred candidate elected is good, but destroying faith in the democratic process of the US is even better.”
Insightful. Off-the-scale insightful.
Doubly so when we consider that there are, in fact, nations who think in terms of hundred-year plans — not mere five-year plans.
Re: Re: Re: Who would not want an investigation?
Not sure how disruption in us would led to desirable outcomes in russia.
Re: Re: Re:2 Who would not want an investigation?
Do you remember how disruptions in the Soviet Union led to desirable outcomes in the US?
Re: Re: Re:3 Who would not want an investigation?
Not to mention – who says Russia are the only ones who could/would do something like this and benefit from the outcome?
Re: Re: Who would not want an investigation?
Perhaps, but destroying faith in the democratic process of the US is harder than it sounds.
Keep in mind that in 2000, there were voting irregularities in a single large state that resulted in the election being called for that state’s governor’s brother. His opponent called for a recount, but it was halted by the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote along party lines.
All three methods of statewide recount eventually showed that Gore actually won Florida. (Though, to be fair, the partial recount method Gore asked for would have actually still resulted in his losing to Bush.)
Not only did this not destroy faith in the democratic process, but Bush was actually elected to a second term in 2004.
Elections no longer exist in the US
There has not been any expectation of a reasonably honest election since computers were introduced into the voting process. There will never be again. I am quite fond of the beasts, own many, and spend my days and nights working with them.
But there is no way to keep a computer from being hacked. Methods have become so sophisticated that a computer which has never been connected to a communication line, has never been subject to sneaker net, had no wifi or other rf contact with another computer, except for an initial load of required software, can still be hacked. Through the air you say — yes, through the air. And there is not just one technique to accomplish this, but several. Do a search on “air gap hack” if you don’t believe me.
Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
“Since computers were introduced”
Google ballot box stuffing & ballot chain of custody.
Computers just makes it easier.
Re: Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
IBM began its existence as… a voting machine manufacturer. There were mechanical/electronic computers in US elections before they existed anywhere else.
Re: Re: Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
Do Not Bend, Fold, Spindle or Mutilate.
Re: Re: Re:2 Elections no longer exist in the US
You forgot Mangle.
Mangle is my favorite.
There are low level manglers. Middle manglers. And higher level manglers.
Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
Well, we could always mark our votes on a piece of damned paper…..
Computer voting should be outlawed.
Re: Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
Paper voting is by far superior if you have even decent vote-counters.
But in USA you typically have a lot of propositions and more local elections to handle too. Having all votes on a single ballot can be impossible and would be almost impossible to properly count. Having each choice on a separate ballot is equally unfeasible to handle. Therefore there is an argument for simplifying the process in some way and voting machines is one such possibility.
Re: Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
“Well, we could always mark our votes on a piece of damned paper…..”
Yeah, there was no controversy over the outcomes of paper elections in the past! /s
Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
You can steal data but not hack it when a computer is air gapped.
Re: Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
Re: Re: Re: Elections no longer exist in the US
I wouldn’t bet on that. I gave seen low voltage RF interfere with computations unintentionally. From there it is a short leap to the process becoming intentional.
> Computers just makes it easier.
Yeah, we should just switch to internet voting on the honor system. I mean, if there’s going to be fraud anyways, then we might as well make it easy, right? Who knows, maybe we could even elect Boaty McBoatface.
/s
Re: Re:
That’s…really not what he said at all.
Re: Re:
But “we” already elected Orangey McOrangeFace.
Re: Re: Re:
And he’s lurking on Techdirt under that name too.
Ah, minions, don’t you love them!
Re: Re:
“Who knows, maybe we could even elect Boaty McBoatface”
Some would say that would be an improvement over the current result.
Or move to mail in ballots
Hillary should ask for recounts in those states not because of the outcome, but because of the mechanism they use to vote is a serious question which needs to be highlighted time and time again – with the goal of removing electronic voting machines…
As a voter, I can use an ID taken from my voter registration form (tear off), go online to the state elections site and verify my vote was cast accordingly.
Push you state representatives to enact mail in ballots.
It’s cheaper for the state, easier for the voter who has weeks to go through the voter materials, write down the votes and mail or use a drop off box.
Re: Or move to mail in ballots
Yeah, that’ll make it a lot easier for Ken Blackwell to refuse to count those votes!
Re: Re: Or move to mail in ballots
…again.
Re: Or move to mail in ballots
Mail In Ballots make it easier to do fraud! How many DEAL people over the years now have been caught voting for example!!
You want to get rid of fraud, you should go in personally , Show a ID, and Vote on a paper Ballet. That is the only way to stop fraud!!!
Re: Re: Or move to mail in ballots
“you should go in personally , Show a ID, and Vote on a paper Ballet. That is the only way to stop fraud!!!”
One kind of fraud, it doesn’t do anything to stop more likely kinds of fraud like those happening at the counting stage. Also, it’s a very nice way to disenfranchise a lot of people.
So, like astronauts going into space...
You don’t want to wait for evidence that there’s a problem with the equipment, you want evidence that everything is working fine.
And that evidence is discovered through a thorough investigation.
Decent metaphor?
Ukrainian corruption
Believing Ukrainian officials is dafter than believing US presidents, and that is telling something. They would never give up the power after the coup succeeded. (And no, this is not a claim that previous regimes were better). The US were the driving force behind the coup to put the fascists at the helm; and it have a lot in common with other US regime-change-wars like Afghanistan, Libya, Irak, Syria. And it is devastating. One peculiarity with Ukraine is that the fascists took control over the previous regimes military and show a baffling glee over bombing people and infrastructure in the south and east.
The Euromaidan were both a wish to be closer to Europa and a wish to secure freedom and independence. Ukraine were a part of the Soviet Union and is a neighbor to powerful Russia. Ukraine have a sizeable part of the population that consider themselves both at Ukrainian and Russian, especially in the parts that the fascists attack. Ukraine energy is in large part supplied by Russia, often below half the marked price. Hodgepodging of nuclear power-plants by the regime to use non-Russian nuclear rods causes problems. The Chernobyl disaster were in Ukraine.
The Euromaidan were not a wish to commence atrocities and mass killings.
Re: Ukrainian corruption
both at Ukrainian and Russian -> both as Ukrainian and Russian
Ukraine energy -> Ukrainian energy
Re: Ukrainian corruption
Slightly off topic?
Re: Ukrainian corruption
As history shows us the USA loves to put mass murdering dictators in charge of formerly democratic countries as long as they give lip service to US interests.
Somewhere in the history lesson translation to the average american citizen this message has become “they hate us for our freedoms and for no other reason”
She conceded, so the answer is mute.
Re: Re:
First: No, it isn’t. That is not how elections work. You can’t just say "I concede" and then the election goes to the other guy even if it turns out later that you actually won.
(I am not saying that this is what happened, in fact I think it’s very unlikely that any recounts will occur, let alone that they will change the outcome of the election. I’m just saying that if they did, then Clinton would become President, whether she conceded or not.)
Second: The word you’re looking for is moot, not mute.
Paper votes can be fixed too. Where will it all end? Endlessly checking every ballot over and over? Sorry but without at least some evidence then an audit isn’t going to happen, and neither should it.
Schrödinger’s Democracy
This is a delightful moral puzzle.
If you check and find nothing, there is a marginal improvement to democracy.
If you check and find something that questions the legitimacy of the election, it is potentially destabilizing. At least half the country would not accept the outcome. Even if a new election was held, people would have already lost faith in the process.
Scientifically, checking your work is the logical thing to do. But the stakes of a bad prognosis could undermine our structures of government.
So no politician, I think, would choose to audit since the potential value/cost is so skewed towards cost.
Re: Schrödinger’s Democracy
In response, both major political parties are in shambles anyway. Percentages going into the election hovered around 14% for either candidate. Congress overall, has held numbers in the single digits for years.
If one party (any) pushes on this, they could been seen to be fighting for citizens, voting ethics and follow on with a slew of legislation proposals or regulation frameworks on how national voting take place.
I Understand that each state has power to create a voting mechanism, but if three states using electronic systems – what many voters fear already – are found to have any, any abnormalities, those states could be pushed to implement something from a framework a majority of citizens could feel safe to use.
The U.S. is in a position now, where the actual process of voting is questionable, not voter ID fraud, but actual vote manipulation through automation, something every citizen could relate to as they’ve all experience problems setting a clock on a VCR to understanding how their smart phones are sending their phone books to companies and countries they’ve never been involved with.
Right now it’s about trust.
The first one through that door will have a lead and can use that to great advantage while the other party(s) will be seen for what it(they) are, not in support of election reform.
The time is now…
No excuses not to ask for a recount, including the chain from electronic voting machine to data transmission, reception and tabulation.
Re: Re: Schrödinger’s Democracy
If someone could just tap into the 50% of americans that chose not to vote.
Re: Re: Re: Schrödinger’s Democracy
However DIABOLIC one might perceive the present Electoral College to be to the “Principals of Democracy”, none of this compares to the DIABOLIC nature inhere within “democracies (so-called!)” which actually adhere to DIRECT ELECTIONS, and which have adopted a “One Voter, One Vote” system to elect Candidates into Office! And I’ll demonstrate this, by revealing the I-N-S-A-N-I-T-Y that was, the Brexit vs Bremain referendum!
.
How is it “DEMOCRATIC”– e.g.!– when the Brexit Referendum “win” of Thursday, June 23rd, 2016, was “won” W-I-T-H-O-U-T the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS’ VOTES?… AND!… NOT JUST, BY WAY OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO’VE DECIDED TO CAST A VOTE! In other words, how can L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of eligible British voters’ votes, constitute a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”? It is– de facto!– I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E (i.e., without God!)! And thus, the Brexit vote is a further example of a “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-S-E-U-D-O-P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” “winning the day”!
.
To compare the Brexit Referendum to an election of a Candidate within a Electoral District… if fifty thousand eligible voters decide not to vote in a District that is composed/ comprised of one hundred thousand eligible voters… and five Candidates are running!… the math would suggest, that no Candidate could possibly obtain a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” from the remaining fifty thousand eligible voters who have cast a vote! Unless!… and of course!… A H-I-J-A-C-K-E-D, AND E-L-I-T-I-S-T P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L P-R-O-C-E-S-S SIMPLY MARGINALIZES THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SHOWN UP TO VOTE; AND, THEN, DICTATES THAT THEIR “NO SHOW”/ ABSENCE, CANNOT– AND SHOULD NOT!– BE HELD “B-I-N-D-I-N-G” IN SOME FASHION, OR FORM (AND SOME “NO SHOWS” ARE AS SUCH, DUE TO DISABILITY, AND/ OR INFIRMITY!… NOT TO MENTION, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SYSTEMICALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, DUE TO THEIR Y-O-U-T-H!)! FOR!… OUT OF SIGHT, IS OUT OF MIND!
.
Simply put!… and to return to the Brexit Referendum!… the said total of 17,410,742. “winning” “pro Brexit” British voters, plus the said total of 16,141,242. “losing” “pro Bremain” eligible British voters, who– together!– showed up at the “Referendum ballot boxes (i.e., 33,551,984 eligible British voters!)”, are in contrast to the ACTUAL TOTAL of 46,499,537 eligible British voters (see Google result, Electoral Commission | Provisional electorate figures published!… AND, LET ALONE, THE EVEN HIGHER ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS’ VOTES TO BE HAD, IF MANY OF THE DISABLED/ INFIRMED BRITISH CITIZENS WERE “ACCOMMODATED”!… AND!… IF MANY BRITISH YOUTH WEREN’T THE TARGETS OF “P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L P-A-T-E-R-N-A-L-I-S-T-I-C A-G-E-I-S-M”!)!… and reveals a deficit of 12,947,553. of the ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER of eligible British voters, and a deficit of 5,839,027. eligible British voters for even a “B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N (i.e., 46,499,537. ÷ 2 = 23,249,768.5… + .5 = [23,249,769.] – 17,410,742. = 5,839,027.!)”! AND THEREFORE, THE COMBINED “WINNERS” AND “LOSERS” TALLY OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E A-C-T-U-A-L T-O-T-A-L- N-U-M-B-E-R O-F E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E B-R-I-T-I-S-H V-O-T-E-R-S/ V-O-T-E-S!… AND!… THE “WINNING TALLY”, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E “M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-L-L” O-F T-H-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R-S O-F B-R-I-T-A-I-N! AND!… THEREFORE!… THE “WINNING TALLY” OF ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS– AT LEAST!– SHOULD BE MET WITH A C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L (AND TORT!) C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E (TO START!) FOR THE F-L-A-G-R-A-N-T B-R-E-A-C-H OF THE “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S” O-F D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y (I.E., AND E.G., IN THE F-A-I-L-U-R-E OF THE BREXIT REFERENDUM RESULT TOTAL, TO ACHIEVE EVEN A B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y T-A-L-L-Y, FOR A ‘M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N’!)”!
.
And so!… the Brexit “win”… like the “wins” seen so often in our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS (AND EVEN IN ELECTIONS WHEREIN “PLURALITY WINS”– E.G., IN AMERICA!– MIGHT BE FAVORED OVER ELECTORAL COLLEGE “WINS”!)!… I-S A S-H-A-M!! And!… it escapes me, why “plurality-driven citizens” from respective “democracies (so-called!)” from around the world, haven’t challenged these scurrilous, and shameful “F-A-U-X P-U-B-L-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-A”!… AND PSEUDOELECTIONS!… AND!… haven’t brought civil proceedings against any and all institutions, which have allowed these G-L-O-B-A-L F-A-R-C-E-S to continue! And thus… re the Brexit Referendum result!… it’s my contention, that the Brexit Referendum is defeatable, due to it’s inherent S-Y-S-T-E-M-I-C V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of the “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”!
.
This horrendous situation involving our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS, has resulted in “winning Candidates” winning (if, indeed, Pluralities are recognized!) with as little as 1/5th of the total number of eligible voters’ votes!… AND!… THEN DARING, TO CALL SUCH RESPECTIVE “WINS”, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C! A-N-D W-O-R-S-E!… and in the case of the Brexit Referendum result (AND “PSEUDOWIN”!)!… such a “W-I-N” could– POTENTIALLY!– C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-Z-E T-H-E S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y O-F A-N E-N-T-I-R-E N-A-T-I-O-N! And so!… it’s no wonder why so many citizens within our respective “democracies (so-called!)” hate the elections process!… and!… hate, Public Referenda!
.
And!… to add Elections insult to Elections injury, there are “Parties” within countries… and again, composed of “winning Candidates” who have “won” with L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M needed for a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”!… whose leadership cannot be chosen D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y by the PEOPLE (e.g., in Canada!)!… and O-N-L-Y, by the Party (although, this is not to detract from the serious failings of the Elections Process in America, in the selection of America’s President!)! And further, rather than have the brightest!… the best!… “winning Candidates” from all across a country– and, from across a legislature’s floor!– forming Executive Cabinets (and in Canada– e.g.– composed of Ministers of Federal Departments, or Provincial Ministries!)!… A-N-D T-H-R-O-U-G-H A N-O-N P-A-R-T-Y_B-A-S-E-D L-E-G-I-S-L-A-T-U-R-E O-R P-A-R-L-I-A-M-E-N-T (and something, incidentally, that municipalities have been doing for generations!… A-N-D, W-O-R-L-D-W-I-D-E)!… our current “PARTY-BASED DEMOCRACIES” have chosen, instead– A-N-D V-I-R-T-U-A-L-L-Y!– GANGS, CLIQUES, AND “P-S-E-U-D-O-S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S”, TO ACT AS “GO-BETWEENS” FOR PARTY-BASED “OLIGARCHIC BACKROOM BOYZ”!
.
But!… if all of this wasn’t bad enough, there’s no “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option on millions of voters’ ballots (AND “B-I-N-D-I-N-G”!… AS A PREREQUISITE!)!… nor, an “AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION” of the “NO SHOWS (i.e., eligible voters who have NOT cast a vote!)” to “B-I-N-D-I-N-G” “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS (inasmuch, as such ‘NO SHOWS’, can’t be translated as being ‘F-O-R’, any Candidate!)”! (BUT!… PLEASE NOTE!… IF OUR “NO SHOWS” AS SUCH, ARE DUE TO OUR P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y– O-R, U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S!– TO ADDRESS THE VOTER NEEDS OF OUR DISABLED/ INFIRMED!… AND, OUR YOUTH!… THEN SUCH “INABLED”, OR “UNWILLING”, SHOULD BE “H-E-L-P-E-D” RE THEIR “I-N-A-B-I-L-T-Y”!… OR H-E-L-D T-O A-C-C-O-U-N-T FOR THEIR “U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S”!) And!… had the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” and the “TRANSLATED NO SHOW” provisions been addressed, many “NO SHOWS” would have shown up to vote (for fear of receiving a MANADATED “BINDING” “AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION”!)! And!… if combined “NO SHOW TRANSLATIONS”, together with directly cast “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS” were implemented (wherein– TOGETHER!– these OUTNUMBER the votes cast for any respective “running Candidate”!), this combined tally could have meant the introduction of “lottery lists” of Candidates within respective Districts (preselected!… and the members in which, would not be eligible to run as “running Candidates”!)!… from which, our “winners” could have then been chosen! And thereby!… E-F-F-E-C-T-I-N-G F-U-L-L R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N F-O-R E-V-E-R-Y S-I-N-G-L-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R, A-N-D V-O-T-E!
.
And!… to juxtapose the just aforesaid template onto Referenda!… and onto the Brexit Referendum, in particular!… if the directly cast “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS”, combined with the “TRANSLATED NO SHOWS”, OUTWEIGHED the votes cast for either the Brexit or Bremain scenarios, then NEITHER Brexit, nor Bremain, would be– DEMOCRATICALLY!– left on the table! And the MPs of the British Parliament, would then be forced to renew their respective individual approaches, and collective approach, re their “arrangement” with the EU!… and, their respective dialogues, and collective dialogue, with the citizens of Britain!
.
And given… and in contrast to the abovenoted!… in the light of the process that was implementated for the Brexit Referendum (though, yet to be revealed “officially”!)!… WELL!… you have the makings of a P-O-O-R E-X-C-U-S-E F-O-R A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M!… A-N-D A P-O-O-R “R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L B-A-S-I-S” F-O-R T-H-E R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-I-O-N O-F T-H-E F-U-T-U-R-E C-O-U-R-S-E F-O-R A-N E-N-T-I-R-E C-O-U-N-T-R-Y!!
.
And so… and to sum up!… what we have, presently, are “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-I-E-S (IF EVEN THESE CAN BE ACHIEVED!… E.G., IN AMERICA!)” IN THE G-U-I-S-E OF “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y E-L-E-C-T-E-D” CANDIDATES! An intolerable situation!… and deserving of both Constitutional challenges, and Tort action! And!… A-N-Y O-T-H-E-R ACCEPTED PLURALITY OTHER THAN A “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” ACCEPTED BY A PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATE, AND/ OR BY A PROSPECTIVE VOTER (AND BASED UPON THE “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”, AS AFOREMENTIONED!… AND OTHER, THAN ONE INSTITUTED BY GOD!)!, IS A CANDIDATE, OR VOTER, WHO IS EITHER BLIND TO THE “LEGITIMATE” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”, OR WHO IS A TRAITOR TO THE “LEGITIMATE” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”! AND!… WHO IS EITHER BLIND, OR A TRAITOR, TO THE COMMON GOOD OF THE PEOPLE!
.
THEREFORE, THE “J-U-S-T ESTABLISHMENT” OF “T-R-U-E DEMOCRATIC PLURALITIES” WITHIN OUR RESPECTIVE REFERENDA, AND ELECTIONS PROCESSES, IS F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L TO THE VERY REALIZATION OF “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y”!… AND!… WITHOUT WHICH, WE ARE SUBJECT TO MERE OLIGARCHIC WHIM!
.
Please!!… no emails!
Re: Re: Re:2 Schrödinger’s Democracy
You fucking make my head hurt with your drivel
Re: Re: Re:3 Schrödinger’s Democracy
He’s clearly insane, just do as I do now – shake your head sadly at the untreated illness presented by the nonsensical wall of text that nobody will ever read and move on.
Re: Re: Re:4 Schrödinger’s Democracy
And flag it, just to improve the odds that other people won’t have to see that particular wall of text in the future.
Re: Re: Re:2 Schrödinger’s Democracy
I know I couldn’t read though all that crap and yelling!
Re: Schrödinger’s Democracy
“At least half the country would not accept the outcome.”
You can’t divide by zero.
Just get Gary to demand a recount. Or Jill. Or both. It could be construed as political, but not the way it would for Hillary.
Paper or Plastic?
Basically, the only way we can actually get an effective audit to see if there were any voting irregularities is to ask for a recount.
By reverting back to using only paper ballots the audit could be accomplished during the initial ballot count.
Yes, paper ballots are a bit more inconvenient than electronic voting but they are much tougher to hack and much easier to audit.
Unfortunately it appears as if the US National Anthem has been changed from the Star Spangled Banner to Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death (thank you Dead Kennedys).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cKcwwEZ9Kw
Without voter ID there is no way to even confirm who’s voting, but how you count the ballots someone found in the trunk of their car makes an election suspect?!?!?!
Re: Re:
Voter fraud is not the problem, electoral fraud is.
Re: Re:
After a vote has been cast, it should never be necessary to transport it out of sight. While it is wasteful on ressources to be rigorous on election standards, it is very important to avoid opacity of the election. Thus transporting voting boxes is not ideal at all. Nor is early voting for that matter…
Alex Halderman
Halderman wants to selectively examine the results in three states that would swing the election to Clinton like the way the the Democrat SOS did in Minnesota’s Senate race in 2008. It resulted in Norm Coleman winning by a slim margin to Al Frankin winning after several selective recounts in Democrat Counties until the desired outcome, that the SOS wanted, was reached. While we are at recounting the results in these three states, let us examine all of the Philadelphia election precincts where turnout exceed the number of active voters by 120%. Let’s examine the Smartmatic DRE servicing software, owned by left wing activist billionaire George Soros that company is contracted with over 300 counties in 16 different swing states. Let’s examine the rolls of paper backup printouts from DRE machines in Clark County, Nevada that never made it to Election Headquarters at Cashman Field on November 8th and later turned up in a dumpster at MGM Grand Hotel which bused thousands of workers to go and vote for Harry Reid in 2010 while they were given half a day off and supplied with voter guides and free lunches. Polls had Reid trailing Sharon Angle by four points in 2010. Let’s examine the numbers of Democrat voters at a Precinct in Washoe County jumping from 954 to over 4,000 in less than one hour. Let us examine all of the examples of voter intimation from Teamsters Union bosses directed at Trump supporters with threats that they would lose their health insurance benefits if they voted and supported Donald Trump along the Culinary Union workers who were also threatened if they voted for Trump and were told that “We have ways of knowing how you voted.”
Re: Alex Halderman
Let’s examine the Smartmatic DRE servicing software, owned by left wing activist billionaire George Soros that company is contracted with over 300 counties in 16 different swing states.
Anyone making this claim is proving themselves to be an idiot. The above statement is a totally false conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. It was passed around on some fake news sites, but it is not true.
Alex Halderman
Halderman wants to selectively examine the results in three states that would swing the election to Clinton like the way the the Democrat SOS did in Minnesota’s Senate race in 2008. It resulted in Norm Coleman winning by a slim margin to Al Frankin winning after several selective recounts of “under votes and provisional ballots in Democrat Counties until the desired outcome, that the SOS wanted, was reached. While we are at recounting the results in these three states, let us examine all of the Philadelphia election precincts where turnout exceed the number of active voters by 120%. Let’s examine the Smartmatic DRE servicing software, owned by left wing activist billionaire George Soros that company is contracted with over 300 counties in 16 different swing states. Let’s examine the rolls of paper backup printouts from DRE machines in Clark County, Nevada that never made it to Election Headquarters at Cashman Field on November 8th and later turned up in a dumpster at MGM Grand Hotel which bused thousands of workers to go and vote for Harry Reid in 2010 while they were given half a day off and supplied with voter guides and free lunches. Polls had Reid trailing Sharon Angle by four points in 2010. Let’s examine the numbers of Democrat voters at a Precinct in Washoe County jumping from 954 to over 4,000 in less than one hour. Let us examine all of the examples of voter intimation from Teamsters Union bosses directed at Trump supporters with threats that they would lose their health insurance benefits if they voted and supported Donald Trump along the Culinary Union workers who were also threatened if they voted for Trump and were told that “We have ways of knowing how you voted.”
Re: Alex Halderman
Nothing stopping you……
THE CONTESTEES
There’s one small oversight!… the electorate have as much of a Right to claim Ballot Results Irregularity– at least!– as any Candidate has! In fact, as Candidates– in a “democracy”!– exist to represent the “will” of the people, it’s my view, that the Right of the people to “Elections transparency”, “trumps” that, OF ANY CANDIDATE! And so… regardless of any set timetable for Candidates to invoke some action on suspected problems with Elections transparency (and re this present Election process, by Friday!… or, thereabouts!), both Constitutional and Tort legal action, are within the Rights of the average American voter to pursue! And!… I should point out, action, on a NUMBER of valid legal grounds!… e.g., the Right to a Paper Ballot (regardless of the state in which one has voted!), and the Right to a “None of the Above Ballot option”!
.
Please!… no emails!
Halderman's hacking theory
We are essentially back to blaming the Russians, I guess, who are working for Trump or want him to win. Is that it ?
I think HRC should ask for a recount and DJT should get back to the Benghazi story as well as Bleachbit and 33 K emails destroyed after a Congressional subpoena was issued. So long as HRC is jail-bound, DJT can risk his Presidency for a recount. Let us be fair. With four Americans dead and NOT one a single man/woman held accountable for the missed signals or lost lives, we can certainly get back to the voting machines being manipulated and get back to tracking the true Benghazi story as it unfolded, can’t we ?
Re: Halderman's hacking theory
Ohhh I had Benghazi on my right wing conspiracy bingo sheet. I just need lesbian Hillary for a bingo!
Re: Re: Halderman's hacking theory
I really love people who have no concept of what they are talking about, calling something a conspiracy theory. As if their pronouncement made it fact. Idiots like Clinton and Trump who believe that if they yell loud enough, then computers will magically become secure. That high decibel screaming violates mathematical law.
People who get their science from movies and television shows ought to be ashamed of themselves. Not just for their ignorance, but more so their intellectual insensateness.
Be curious...
as to how many of those “paper copies” rely on the voting machine being honest too. Far too many seem to print an “audit log” to a secure output bin, sight unseen. Not only does that risk a printer failure making the log worthless, but also what goes into the log is under the full control of the evoting machine – which of course is going to ensure the printed log is consistent with the electronic one.
Flabbergasted
I am not American but following from over the pond what goes on in your country right now. And I must say, I’m flabbergasted.
If the numbers reported here are right, then 0.04 % of the 126+ million voters are enough to flip the result one way or the other.
I would set heaven and hell in motion to make sure the numbers add up, no matter which candidate I voted…
political comedy
Hillary can’t ask for an investigation because it would expose her own hacking attempts. Dems are sour grapeing it because they got out hacked.
She couldn’t fill a tiny church, a school gym, or any of the excessively small venues chosen by her campaign. But she got half the vote? Please. There was hacking all around.
Re: political comedy
“Dems are sour grapeing it because they got out hacked.”
So, you’re admitting that Trump’s campaign hacked the voting machines? Interesting. Since, you know, she couldn’t get out hacked unless Trump was also hacking.
I’m not sure what’s better about some of the Trump supporters – the fact that they can only ever respond by attacking Clinton (never by considering a 3rd perspective or, god forbid, actually defending their candidate’s behaviour), or the fact that their defences often actually paint their candidate as worse.
Re: Re: political comedy
You are assuming that I am a trump supporter. Wrong again. Try reading all the way to the end of the paragraph.
Re: Re: Re: political comedy
Hmmm… My mistake.
But, up until that point, the central idea still stands. I’m not seeing a refutation of the idea that Trump or his supporters may have been involved in hacking, only some unfounded accusations against Clinton as doing the same thing (and a few irrelevant attacks on her for not depending on the same tactics as her opponent in other areas).
No matter the subject, there’s never a question of one of your leaders having done something despicable, only attempts to state that everyone you choose to represent you is equally horrible.
Scanning paper ballots
Some opponents to recounting bring up cost of rechecking as a limitation. In my voting site in PA, we filled in paper ballots and then brought them up to a machine that scanned them in and counted the votes, an easy way to instantly count AND leave a paper trail. If the scanner could additionally be configured to store a digitized copy (if it doesn’t already do so), and this could be done at all sites in US, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to imagine releasing all scanned ballots publicly. I’m sure a lot of people would be willing to participate in crowndsourced recounting for free, either by hand or by writing image processing software to do it. Think of the boost in confidence of the results, and the public’s sense of participatory democracy, when anyone who cared to check the results was actually able to.
Where do we find a true neutral party to check though?
If we wanted to talk about fixing elections in one persons favour we could start with the one we know was rigged. The DNC and Hillary rigging the democratic primary in her favour.
Those “hackers” could be working for Hillary Clinton.
Re: Re:
Hillary rigged the election to make sure Hillary lost the election?
Truly playing 4-D chess here.
Halderman has lost his credibility
In Michigan they use optical/paper machines, not the voting machines that Halderman is talking about. He lied. He no longer is credible as a security expert if he makes a HUGE misstatement as that. It shows he makes assumptions, how can you trust a security expert who bases his opinion on assumptions and not on reality?
Didn’t Hillary attack Trump for not publicly stating he would accept the outcome of the election?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for hand counting all ballots to verify an election, to include cross checking legal citizenship and weeding out double or multiple votes by the same persons, but shouldn’t all that be automatic? Why exactly does a candidate have to be involved at all?
This feels very football-ish. Like one of the coaches has to call a time out and ask for a review of the play when he doesn’t like the call. IMO, if the play is that close, it should be automatic.
But:
That is how you find out if it, the election, has been hacked. You recount, verify, and check against the polling. But in places like Missouri, the vote has been legally hacked, by the process called gerimandering, where you change the borders of the voting district, to create a winner elsewhere. Securing the state for a certain influence. So not all votes are equal.
Jill Stein may be asking for a recount
I read that she said she would ask for a recount in battleground states if she could raise the money. I wouldn’t be shocked to see her suddenly get that money and make the request, for exactly the reasons you stated. HRC couldn’t do it without claims of hypocritical politicking, but Stein’s already considered a bit kooky, so what has she got to lose?