Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results

[Fueri]

One of the guys that actually started all of this said this

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other"



I've been saying since this started that, seeing as they have no actual evidence and we're basing suppositions on statistical anomalies, that this was more a job for statisticians than computer scientists, as the whole basis was this seeming statistical anomaly.



He also says:

"You may have read at NYMag that I’ve been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. Thatarticle, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen."

So, people have also apparently been misrepresenting what he is saying. Given that we are dealing with politicians, this should come as no surprise.




Well, Nate Silver looked at it.

Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

In summary, when implementing other variables, this supposed margin vanishes. read the article for further info.



This is nonsense. no proof, no statistically based anything, no evidence of hacking, nothing, ZERO.

Exactly, and we have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

Yep, the left grabbed this, distorted what the guy said, spun that story out and is now trying to force a recount.

The original article, that the guy said "incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot)."

Was put out by the same people that gave us this

No, no bias there at all. lol.

good lord, what a joke.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You also did not read the second article.

I read it, pretty much the same as the first. They are both talking about voter databases. Now if there were voters removed off the list or some strange ones added, then yes, that would have an effect on the election. But to my knowledge, that wasn't the problem or complaint here.

This is from the second article I linked to:

"Theoretically, another type of advanced attack, experts said, would be to target and modify software for voting machines so that it could affect what names are displayed or how votes are counted, though experts believe this would be too tricky to execute.

“You could, in theory, hack into that software and change it so that it would tally something differently. But again, those types of things are really hard to do just in terms of actually doing it, and doing it in an undetected way is much, much more difficult,” said Daniel Castro, vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Some experts are concerned about states that use touch-screen voting machines that leave no paper trail. Five states are completely paperless: Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey and South Carolina. Nine other states have some counties that use paperless systems: Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. "

More state election databases hacked than previously thoughtMore state election databases hacked than previously thought

dated September 28, 2016, by the way.

Yes, but your article admits (like the others I"ve read here) that it's almost impossible and certainly not probable. So do we have an Al Gore all over again for the 1/1000 chance that the machines might have been hacked?

 

[xyz]

But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".

You are scared of facts.


If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".

You are scared of facts.


If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.

No, as I stated repeatedly, what pisses us off is we have to go through this every damn time a Democrat loses the presidential election. This time it's because of the near impossibility of hacked machines. Last time it was because the machines were made by Diebold, and the exit polling didn't match the election results. The time before, it was punch card ballots and hanging chads.

We may gripe and complain when we lose elections, but not demand statewide recounts when there is no evidence whatsoever that anything went wrong.

Hillary is taking the right position. She lost, and it's time for the left to MoveOn.org.

 

[Freewill]

Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.

That's exactly what I said. So did he ever write about this during DumBama's last two elections? If not, then it seems that bringing it up now is agenda driven.

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.

Winning the pop vote by over 2 MILLION votes is significant, esp when the election results were a major upset (contrary to 90% of the polls) and the 3 states where E-voting machines showed significant irregularities were predicted to go to Clinton, which would have provided her the 270+ electoral votes.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.

I believe there were 130 million votes or there about, 2 million would be about 1 percent that certainly could account for Hillary's cheating, not Trump's. Trump didn't have the organization nor the establishments support to be able to rig the election on such a scale, very unlike the democrats. Go ahead open an investigation, me thinks it ill just be one more scandal for Hillary.

I am not sure why you folks think that any discrepancy aids Trump. In Pa the machines were found to be flipping Trump votes not Hillary.

Careful what you wish for. And note, Hillary isn't even considering challenging the legal election. She knows they cheated, they just couldn't cheat enough.

 

[Freewill]

Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.

That's exactly what I said. So did he ever write about this during DumBama's last two elections? If not, then it seems that bringing it up now is agenda driven.

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.

Winning the pop vote by over 2 MILLION votes is significant, esp when the election results were a major upset (contrary to 90% of the polls) and the 3 states where E-voting machines showed significant irregularities were predicted to go to Clinton, which would have provided her the 270+ electoral votes.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.

Again, not significant because that difference is ONE state. Trump won the popular vote in 49 states combined. Hillary won California.

 

[Fueri]

But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".

You are scared of facts.


If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.

Nonsense. if there are facts, present them.

What we have now are not facts, it is the assertion that the results didn't match the polls going in. that, in a nutshell is all they have, and that is not grounds for a recount.

statisticians have already refuted these claims, and they have no evidence of hacking whatsoever.


We have a story, of some "top computer scientists" which, according to one of those very people upon which this whole thing rests, was incorrectly describing the reasons he gave them.

The left has simply fabricated a basis for a recount, twisting the facts you are so concerned with to do so.

 

[PK1]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.

In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.

In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.

Then why have them at all?

 

[PK1]

Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.

That's exactly what I said. So did he ever write about this during DumBama's last two elections? If not, then it seems that bringing it up now is agenda driven.

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.

Winning the pop vote by over 2 MILLION votes is significant, esp when the election results were a major upset (contrary to 90% of the polls) and the 3 states where E-voting machines showed significant irregularities were predicted to go to Clinton, which would have provided her the 270+ electoral votes.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.

I believe there were 130 million votes or there about, 2 million would be about 1 percent that certainly could account for Hillary's cheating, not Trump's. Trump didn't have the organization nor the establishments support to be able to rig the election on such a scale, very unlike the democrats.

What "cheating" facts are you referring to? Or, are you pulling that out of your ass?
Trump does not need the technical know how to cheat; he has the Russians to thank for that.
Cyber security experts and US intelligence agencies pointed to Russian actors for DNC hacking as well as other breaches.

 

[PK1]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.

Winning the pop vote by over 2 MILLION votes is significant, esp when the election results were a major upset (contrary to 90% of the polls) and the 3 states where E-voting machines showed significant irregularities were predicted to go to Clinton, which would have provided her the 270+ electoral votes.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.

Again, not significant because that difference is ONE state. Trump won the popular vote in 49 states combined. Hillary won California.

Unless the "Cal-exit" initiative is successful, ALL votes from USA citizens count. Trump himself believes in that "America first" democracy.
What is your problem?

 

[PK1]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.

In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.

Then why have them at all?

???

 

[dannyboys]

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com

This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...

Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...

HAAAAA HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Desperate Andrea Mitchell Badgers Ed Rendell for Possible Vote Recount

 

[dannyboys]

But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".

You are scared of facts.


If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.

You KNOW you're reading a post from a fucking LIB idiot when you read the words: "people are saying".
Ed Rendell is telling you to fucking grow up!
Desperate Andrea Mitchell Badgers Ed Rendell for Possible Vote Recount

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.

In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.

Then why have them at all?

???

What's the question marks for? If we don't trust these machines and have to do a manual recount every time a Democrat loses, then don't use the machines at all. Hand count all ballots. It will take us a few months to find out who won, but what the hell, as long as leftists are happy, right?

 

[Iceweasel]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.

In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.

Then why have them at all?

???

What's the question marks for? If we don't trust these machines and have to do a manual recount every time a Democrat loses, then don't use the machines at all. Hand count all ballots. It will take us a few months to find out who won, but what the hell, as long as leftists are happy, right?

The Dems counted the gubernatorial race here three times until the numbers came up right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's exactly what I said. So did he ever write about this during DumBama's last two elections? If not, then it seems that bringing it up now is agenda driven.

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.

Winning the pop vote by over 2 MILLION votes is significant, esp when the election results were a major upset (contrary to 90% of the polls) and the 3 states where E-voting machines showed significant irregularities were predicted to go to Clinton, which would have provided her the 270+ electoral votes.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.

I believe there were 130 million votes or there about, 2 million would be about 1 percent that certainly could account for Hillary's cheating, not Trump's. Trump didn't have the organization nor the establishments support to be able to rig the election on such a scale, very unlike the democrats.

What "cheating" facts are you referring to? Or, are you pulling that out of your ass?
Trump does not need the technical know how to cheat; he has the Russians to thank for that.
Cyber security experts and US intelligence agencies pointed to Russian actors for DNC hacking as well as other breaches.

Oh, so you trust cyber security experts? Very well, from the OP:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

 

[PK1]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.

In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.

Then why have them at all?

???

What's the question marks for? If we don't trust these machines and have to do a manual recount every time a Democrat loses, then don't use the machines at all. Hand count all ballots. It will take us a few months to find out who won, but what the hell, as long as leftists are happy, right?

Why are you biased on this election integrity issue? No want fairness?
Since we already used these electronic voting machines, we need to validate their integrity.
If they cannot be secured, then you are right; we should not use them in the future.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why are you biased on this election integrity issue? No want fairness?
Since we already used these electronic voting machines, we need to validate their integrity.
If they cannot be secured, then you are right; we should not use them in the future.

They are secured and that isn't good enough, so why not get rid of them entirely? I mean, we have to go through this every time a Democrat loses, so what would make Democrats happy? After all, that's what it's all about. Two articles that both said it's virtually impossible to do anything to these machines. But they have to be investigated and recounted because the Democrat didn't get the expected results. No evidence to suggest anything went wrong, just that Hillary should have won, and because she didn't, something must be amiss.

 

[Ame®icano]

You'd think if these Michigan scientist were legit... and since they are in... MICHIGAN, they would know if Michigan used any electronic voting.

You'd think that just because teaching computer programming makes you a scientist. I know kids that know much more about programming than those "scientists". If that is the measure for being scientist, then I am a scientist, since I am programming in several different languages and platforms.