
Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - plessthanpt05
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/
======
cplanas
Nate Silver commented (debunked, I would say) this issue on Twitter. It seems
that the "abnormality" detected or does not make sense (Pennsylvania,
Michigan) or disappears when controlling for race and educations levels
(Wisconsin).

[https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801220813890277376](https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801220813890277376)

~~~
tnecniv
What does he use to make those reports?

~~~
trosi
It looks like Stata:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata)

------
joatmon-snoo
Is there anything floating out there beyond the article in New York[1] and
everyone reiterating it?

The stuff over at Election Law Blog[2] seems to be worth quoting here:

> Without public evidence on the record to examine it is hard to really
> evaluate this claim other than by looking at the credibility of the people
> involved. Halderman is very credible, and if he says there are anomalies
> that deserve investigation, they should be investigated. But the fact that
> this group has gone to Elias and Podesta, and so far the campaign has said
> nothing since learning of it last Thursday, should give you pause. Time has
> just about run out. Claiming a hacked or rigged election is about as
> explosive a claim as one could make—-especially coming after Trump made
> unsupported allegations of vote rigging throughout the election. If there’s
> a realistic chance of anything here that could be proven to affect the
> election outcome, you have to trust Clinton’s legal team to advance it (or
> have advanced it already).

[1] [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-
urge-...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-
clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html) [2]
[http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89454](http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89454)

~~~
emcrazyone
Well there is this and the retaliation over the email server she had running
coupled with the fact she was caught lying in front of a Senate hearing on
Benghazzi. I would say she did something smart for a change. I.e. facts vs.
some wild claims... And with all the BS with past Florida elections coupled
with Trump's claims of a rigged election, my bet is the ballot casting and
voting machines are more protected now a days than days past.

~~~
threeseed
We know that Russia was complicit in hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails and
supplying the information to Wikileaks for the purposes of influencing the
campaign. We also know of the close ties between the Russian and Trump teams
i.e. Flynn, Manafort, Page. And we know that Trump favoured a reset with
Russia which based on comments from Putin looks to be happening.

So why wouldn't Russia given (a) how bad the sanctions are, (b) the threat of
NATO and (c) their desire to reclaim Baltic states do everything in their
power to hack voting machines ?

And given this is state sponsored hacking what could possibly stop them ?
Especially given that China managed to steal F-35 information despite surely
some of the most stringent security controls around.

~~~
emcrazyone
Well for one, "hacking" emails doesn't equal votes as far as I can tell and
the link you provided doesn't talk about tampering with ballots or voting
equipment. Where is the connection? This sounds like more conspiracy theory
but I'm listening.

~~~
makomk
This election has basically been a breeding ground for conspiracy theories
about vote rigging. The other main axes have been:

A viral claim that Trump won because 300,000 voters were turned away due to
insufficient identification: [http://www.snopes.com/300000-wisconsin-voters-
turned-away-du...](http://www.snopes.com/300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-
due-to-voter-id-laws/) (Definitely not true. That was an estimate of the total
number of people that might not have suitable ID under a law that was
overturned. If I recall correctly, the estimate had some issues too. Also,
Trump performed much better than expected amongst the demographic that was
supposedly being turned away to win him the vote.)

A bizarre viral tweet asking people to contact the DoJ, together with a claim
that more votes were counted for President than cast in one county in
Wisconsin: [http://www.snopes.com/audit-the-
vote/](http://www.snopes.com/audit-the-vote/) (Apparently the initial reports
are just based on phoned-in results that are checked later, and someone
misheard.)

A claim by Greg Palast that Crosscheck was used to rig the vote by purging the
registrations of enough black voters in Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina
to swing the vote. Not on Snopes, but the proposed mechanism wouldn't work -
Michigan only purges voters on the list if they fail to reply to a posted
notification and then don't vote in any elections between this one and January
2019, and the other states should have similar safeguards by federal law.

------
supernintendo
Why is electronic voting accepted? Proprietary software means the election
results can never truly be trusted. Richard Stallman has written about this
[1].

[1] [https://stallman.org/evoting.html](https://stallman.org/evoting.html)

~~~
nopassrecover
I'm sure I'm missing something simple here, but couldn't we combine electronic
voting with a physical print-out that the voter receives immediately,
including their vote and a unique (but anonymous) identifier.

The voter checks this print-out is correct and submits it to an audit box as
they leave the voting booth.

If it is incorrect, they file an immediate complaint, and the data is later
corrected based on their unique vote identifier (this could be recorded in the
audit box with a vote correction audit form for that identifier).

The physical audit counts can then be retained, and spot-verified against the
electronic counts if/as needed.

This assumes (as I think we must) integrity of the voting officers and of
chain of custody of the physical audit voting boxes.

~~~
pdkl95
The problem is that the computer becomes effectively an expensive pencil. You
haven't gained a lot, but the cost increases a lot. Worse, there is a huge
increase in complexity which means more opportunity for bugs and a larger
attack surface.

> unique vote identifier

This is also a serious problem if it is possible for the voter's copy of the
identifier to recover their vote after they have left the voting booth. That
would enable vote buying or coercing votes.

edit:

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the detail of how mail-in ballots are
handled. I should research that.

~~~
patrickk
> This is also a serious problem if it is possible for the voter's copy of the
> identifier to recover their vote after they have left the voting booth. That
> would enable vote buying or coercing votes.

How is this issue currently dealt with in places that allow mail in ballots?

~~~
hifigi
In Washington state (King County), the mail-in ballots are placed inside a
privacy "sleeve" that contains a signed statement on the outside that you
autograph. If your signature matches the signature of your voter registration,
the ballot is removed from the privacy sleeve and put into an anonymous pile.
It is then processed by a scantron machine. You only get a confirmation that
your vote was processed into the system and counted.

~~~
function_seven
But none of that prevents a Alice from forcing Bob to mark his ballot in the
prescribed way, with Alice then taking it to the mailbox herself.

Bob may choose to deliberately change his signature so the ballot is at least
invalidated, but that still takes a vote away from his preferred candidate,
and would rely on Alice not knowing what Bob's true signature looks like.

------
mark_l_watson
I have been a Democrat my whole life. In my opinion rehashing the vote would
be very bad for our country.

Something that disturbs me greatly is the reaction of the media to the
election. My wife had MSNBC on for an hour last night. There was one Trump
supporter on briefly and they were constantly interrupted. Otherwise it was
all editorializing against Trump.

We have lost a free and impartial news media, and that bodes ill for our
country.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
The media literally did Trump though, because they were looking for profit
(because he did make them a ton of money). I don't think you can ever call
them free.

------
tezza
A challenge to the results could discover Hillary Clinton lost the total
popular vote as well, or see Trump's margin increase.

~~~
regularfry
And that would be a worthwhile thing to know.

~~~
tezza
Im not an american, but I would predict a lot of turmoil caused by the
challenge

------
ousta
"The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in
the three states could have been manipulated or hacked"

then few lines later: "Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had
not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an
independent review."

Great journalism, great scientific findings they probably used the same ML
algorithm that predicted Clinton would get 80%

------
pipio21
ohh, the Irony.

From the guys that accused Trump of not accepting the result of
elections(because they considered done in Hillary's favor), turns out they
don't want to accept it either.

Of course electronic voting machines could be hacked, but it is way easier to
hack it when you know the source code, like the NSA knows, and the company
that makes it is American, than Russia. So I bet the hack will be in Hillary's
favor instead of otherwise.

~~~
makomk
Incredibly ironic. Before the election, there were fears in the press that
Trump would refuse to accept the Pennsylvania results and it'd be impossible
to prove that the results were accurate: [http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-
na-pol-pennsylvania-votin...](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-
pennsylvania-voting-paperless-20161020-snap-story.html) (Because of course,
the idea that the vote could be hacked was seen as a Trump conspiracy theory
back then.)

One way of rationalizing this, courtesy of Joss Whedon, is that this was all a
sneaky trick by Trump to get Democrats to debunk the possibility of vote
hacking so that he and Russia could get away with doing it:
[https://twitter.com/joss/status/801205749955194880](https://twitter.com/joss/status/801205749955194880)

------
crucialfelix
If the result was changed and Clinton became president elect there would be
civil war. The US would never have a peaceful election ever again.

~~~
zamalek
> The US would never have a peaceful election ever again.

These elections were anything but peaceful, going by the harassment of Trump
supporters that I keep seeing on Reddit.

~~~
ryan-allen
Of or by?

~~~
OscarCunningham
The are 320 million people in the US. Therefore there were many instances of
violence against supporters of any candidate by supporters of any other
candidate. But statistically the was almost no political violence of any kind.

~~~
zamalek
There were absolutely no instances of this[1] type of violence after our
(South African) elections. To me, that's violence.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Ierwcw4pQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Ierwcw4pQ)

~~~
OscarCunningham
What I mean is that even if only 0.0001% of the population commits an act of
violence there will still be enough violence for the media to report about it
non-stop.

But it's still valid to say that the violence is virtually non-existent, in
the same way that you might say that coins don't land on their edges, even
though they do 0.0001% of the time.

Also, looking at the news it seems like there was quite a bit of violence in
South Africa in the run-up to the elections, so I don't think that's really a
counterexample.

------
meira
CNN? MSM is the real deal when it comes to fake news.

Tip from a brazillian: this would break your country.

------
ainiriand
Democrats would do a better favor to the country in the next 4 years focusing
in the problems that caused this (internal, bad politics, corruption) and let
Trump do its job as President.

------
duncan_bayne
I guess that's an improvement on rioting. Hopefully folks are finding the
tantrums from the Left enlightening, as we're getting to see their emotional
reaction to having their power lust denied.

Sadly, it's been denied by electing Trump :( Win some, lose some, I guess.

------
Gravityloss
Seen on hacker news 3 days ago, and the blog post was written on november 14
already. Don't know who originally got the idea?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12993153](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12993153)

------
erelde
Related to the last paragraph, and in advance excuse me for my lack of
knowledge about US history, has the electoral college ever voted for another
candidate?

~~~
internaut
I don't think so but there was an 1824 edge case with John Quincy Adams. He
won neither the electoral college or popular vote but the Senate later decided
to put him in office anyway. No word on what his rival thought about it!

Today I think there might be a fuss.

Also these are the fellows who didn't get the popular vote but got enough
electoral college votes.

1876, Rutherford B. Hayes

1888, Benjamin Harrison

2000, George W. Bush

2016, Donald J. Trump

~~~
sparky_z
> No word on what his rival thought about it!

Not sure if you're joking, but of course we _do_ know. His rival, Andrew
Jackson, was livid. He accused Adams (with some justification, but nothing
proven) of striking a "corrupt bargain" with the Speaker of the House, Henry
Clay. (It was actually the House that decided, not the Senate). Jackson
alledged that Clay secured Adams the presidency in exchange for being
appointed Secretary of State. Riding the wave of outrage, Jackson formed his
own party (which eventualy evolved into the modern Democratic Party) and
handily defeated Adams four years later.

~~~
internaut
I was making light of it, I was about to suggest they should have dueled with
pistols.

Then I thought that really might make perfect sense.

\- no dynasties. \- civic minded selection. \- outcome not in dispute. \-
cheaper than counting votes.

Maybe not literally with pistols but now I'm intrigued as to whether this has
been tried before.

~~~
erelde
Wouldn't that be "the strongest man becomes the chieftain" kind of system?

I don't think I know of any human societies (non fictional) which worked with
this system...

~~~
internaut
We can deal death out without bias such as physical strength or ability using
weapons.

Two people enter two different boxes that contain a button each. Only one can
leave because one of the boxes is a suicide box. They choose the box they
enter to prevent systematic bias/corruption.

The purpose of this process isn't a boring version of The Hunger Games. It is
to prevent the greater problem of civil conflict and ultimately save more
lives.

It is a symbolic act, a ritual. There are actually many societies where a
human or animal is blamed for a 'global' problem the tribe has, and then
killed which removes the tension and the danger it created.

The most obvious example of this is Christianity. It involves a scapegoated
individual being murdered in order for the tribe to reform itself, which
although I am not a Christian, does seem to be a description of what happened.

The reverse process also occurs. When a leader like Arch Duke Ferdinand is
assassinated, the event becomes a symbolic fulcrum through which human society
demanded blood. Violence is like a chain reaction.

Here is a modern example. Bachir of Lebanon:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachir_Gemayel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachir_Gemayel)

"On 14 September 1982, Bachir was addressing fellow Phalangists at their
headquarters in Achrafieh for the last time as their leader and for the last
time as commander of the Lebanese Forces. At 4:10 PM, a bomb was detonated at
the headquarters, killing Bachir and 26 other Phalange politicians...

Habib Shartouni, a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and also a
Maronite Christian, was later arrested for the assassination. His sister was
living in the apartment above the room Bachir was in. He had visited her the
previous day and planted the bomb in her apartment. The next day, he called
her and told her to get out of the building. Once she was out, he detonated
the bomb from a few miles away from the building. When he came back to check
on his sister, he was immediately arrested. He later confessed to it, saying
he had done this because “Bachir had sold the country to Israel.” A reporter
was heard telling him "You didn't kill a man, you killed a country." He was
imprisoned for 8 years, until Syrian troops took over Lebanon at the end of
the war and freed him on 13 October 1990..."

In my model the reporter understands something very important.

Had Habib Shartouni been ritually (which is another way of saying 'publicly
orchestrated') killed, the anger could have found a resting place at his
grave.

What happened next is illustrated in the remarkable anime Israeli film "Waltz
with Bashir".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_with_Bashir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_with_Bashir)

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the killing of between 762 and 3,500
civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites, by a militia close to the
Kataeb Party, also called Phalange, a predominantly Christian Lebanese right-
wing party in the Sabra neighborhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp in
Beirut, Lebanon.

The massacre was presented as retaliation for the assassination of newly
elected Lebanese president Bachir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese Kataeb
Party."

So that is my position. Human society can use ritual as a social 'hack' to
prevent a high blood price.

One obvious example is in the present with the increasing tensions in Europe
due to the migrant/refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. While I do not condone
violence I also believe the act of ritually killing (I won't mention anybody
or anything specifically to avoid being controversial) would prevent (what I
believe to be) much more exaggerated violence later on.

This would have to be done officially by the State and in the full public eye.

This is a strange subject, but it is only what we see of ourselves, we are
strange animals. Many modern phenomenon, 9/11, Black Lives Matter are related
to this subject.

------
Upvoter33
It's funny: the article says some CS folks think the election might have been
hacked. Then it says well there is no evidence of hacking, but some stats
indicate something may be off. In my worldview, when you want to base an
article and conclusion on statistics, you should probably talk to some
statisticians, not computer security experts.

------
abritinthebay
I'm all for it, given the widespread reported issues, but I'd love to see
their data and work.

Some big names tho.

------
krige
Funny how the perception on possiblity of fraud changed after the election
when the "wrong" side won.

~~~
peteretep
I wonder if there's any difference between "the lizard people are trying to
throw the election because George Soros" and "there are some things that don't
make sense that bear further investigation".

~~~
krige
I wonder if fringe cries are a valid line of attack on someone you don't agree
with.

~~~
peteretep

        > fringe cries
    

No more than just makin up terms...

------
EGreg
I wish voting in some districts would move to apps and a blockchain.

Australia is already using Ranked Voting and now this is taking shape:

[https://cointelegraph.com/news/australia-to-make-
blockchain-...](https://cointelegraph.com/news/australia-to-make-blockchain-
voting-app-a-global-democratic-movement)

~~~
ecdavis
That article is using the word "Australia" to mean "a small political party in
Australia." The party in question did not gain any seats in the recent Federal
election.

Given the AEC's reticence to adopt electronic voting[0] I suspect it will be a
long time before they consider using blockchain technology, if they ever do.

[0]
[http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/report.htm](http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/report.htm)

~~~
EGreg
I didn't want to say Australia is using this app, I said it's using ranked
voting.

