
Some thoughts about the reports of supposed evidence of election irregularities - _pius
http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2016/11/24/some-thoughts-about-the-reports-of-supposed-evidence-of-election-irregularities-in-mi-pa-and-wi/
======
grzm
_Once more unto the breach…_

Looks like we're about to have the same voting/election discussion we've had
at least 6 times over the past month or so (most recently a day ago). If
anyone's interested in reading what's already been discussed, here are links
to the previous threads:

"Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13032199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13032199)

"American Elections Will Be Hacked"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967)

"Maryland will audit all votes cast in general election"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396)

"Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12883356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12883356)

"In Pennsylvania, Claims of a Rigged Election May Be Impossible to Disprove"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790247)

"Votes could be counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12841178](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12841178)

------
pfooti
This is similar to what Nate Silver put out earlier (as mentioned in the
article). The difference in voting to each candidate by county and voting
machine type is completely explained by the population distribution in those
counties.

In Wisconsin, the counties that used paper ballots tended to be less white and
better educated. That's why Clinton got more votes there, probably. It is
unlikely that there is real widespread tampering.

That said, there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They're
quite important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a
disservice to the process, IMO.

~~~
grzm
_there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They 're quite
important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a
disservice to the process, IMO._

Agreed. Maybe it's late, but I'm leaning towards thinking auditing should be
closer to the norm than otherwise. Kinda like testing? Get the system so
smooth and clean that everything is obvious and trustworthy.

Edit: Okay, it _is_ getting late. I just starting thinking of what an election
Chaos Monkey would look like.

~~~
Klathmon
Nobody else mentioned it, but an election "chaos monkey" would be interesting.

From the few second I thought about it, you could have some "approved
troublemakers" that are VERY well controlled and licensed to go and do things
like attempt to tamper with machines, multi-vote, ballot stuff, or something
similar. If it's done in a way that they know exactly how many extras they put
in (how i'm not sure, but it'd need to be bullet proof) they could basically
"audit" election systems.

Currently, there is no legal way to "test" the system as far as I know.

~~~
grzm
Interesting idea, isn't it? I suspect that many of the failure modes you'd
want to test would require a full re-do of the election, at least at the level
of the precinct. I don't know how tolerant the population would be. Though I
encourage you to follow through and see what you come up with :) I'd be
interested to read about it.

~~~
Klathmon
I'm not so sure it would need to be that drastic.

If I get a "stamp of approval" to tamper with a voting machine, I could get to
the point of being able to tamper, but not do anything. Or I could (if it was
safe to do so) have it add 30,000 votes to a false candidate. It would be
similar to how "white hat" hackers need to be able to show a POC but not
actually do any harm.

Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it could at least start figuring out where the
weakness are.

~~~
grzm
_Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step._

That, I think, would be potentially useful.

~~~
nkurz
Here's a 2012 paper from a team at the University of Michigan detailing a
"mock election" gone wrong:

 _Title._ Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System

 _Abstract._ In 2010, Washington, D.C. developed an Internet voting pilot
project that was intended to allow overseas absentee voters to cast their
ballots using a website. Prior to deploying the system in the general
election, the District held a unique public trial: a mock election during
which anyone was invited to test the system or attempt to compromise its
security. This paper describes our experience participating in this trial.
Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near-complete control
of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost
every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for
nearly two business days—and might have remained unaware for far longer had we
not deliberately left a prominent clue. This case study—the first (to our
knowledge) to analyze the security of a government Internet voting system from
the perspective of an attacker in a realistic pre-election deployment—attempts
to illuminate the practical challenges of securing online voting as practiced
today by a growing number of jurisdictions.

[https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-
fc12.pdf](https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-fc12.pdf)

~~~
grzm
Thanks for the link! I look forward to reading the paper.

Yeah, from what I've read I really don't think any type of online voting
system is the way to go. Interesting that they pretty much owned the server.
Without reading, I suspect that has more to do with the system architecture
than it being a voting application.

------
justAsking2017
Has anyone noted that Trump sounding off about election rigging is a perfect
ploy for one who knew the election would be rigged in their favor?

In response, the opposition made strong claims that elections cannot be
rigged, in spite of the verified evidence of experts that they can be rigged.

Net result: Trump wins an 'upset' election, that was actually rigged in his
favor, whilst the opposition cannot bring itself to claim that is was rigged,
as that would be a contradiction of their earlier defense of the voting
system's integrity.

There already exists a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting
results: a distributed consensus network utilizing a public block chain.
Voters get assigned public/private key pairs upon registration. Their vote is
a simple transaction on the blockchain which they can validate anytime they
want.

~~~
pg314
If a voter can validate their vote at any time, the system is susceptible to
coercion and vote buying. From what I've read most experts seem to agree that
paper voting is the safest.

~~~
leereeves
Also susceptible to hackers who get access to the voter's private key. It's
not "a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting results".

------
i-think
I don't think this article adds anything to the discussion. It repeats
Halderman's earlier point.

 _the important point is that all elections should be audited, and not only if
you have statistics suggesting that something might be fishy._

And repeats other conclusions which say that there are no signs of something
fishy in the currently available data, at least based on initial statistical
analyses.

~~~
mzw_mzw
It's a pity that journalists (and a few self-interested politicians) distorted
Halderman's points so dramatically. This stuff's never going to go away, now
-- it'll be the foundation of wild conspiracy theories for decades.

~~~
whybroke
More damaging would be if it implicitly changes the message from 'audits
should always be done' to 'we're doing it because there was monkey business'

~~~
mzw_mzw
It already has. Which is doubly unfortunate since there is no evidence
whatsoever of monkey business anyway.

------
biafra
Why do they allow computers for voting at all? There will always be doubt that
computers have been manipulated.

~~~
hashkb
But paper ballots and scanning machines... those are clearly safer?

~~~
meowface
Yes. Because - assuming you keep the paper ballots around somewhere - someone
2000 miles away can't manipulate what those paper ballots say.

~~~
JadeNB
> Yes. Because - assuming you keep the paper ballots around somewhere -
> someone 2000 miles away can't manipulate what those paper ballots say.

But someone on the premises can. It's not as if there was never election fraud
before computerisation!

~~~
meowface
It's a lot harder to organize multiple staff at multiple polling stations in
multiple precincts - enough so that it's unlikely someone not in on the plan
won't notice what's going on, all of whom are willing to cover for each other
and who won't leak, and who can somehow protect the ballots against
independent auditing, to conspire to manipulate paper ballots than some guy in
another country just compromising the polling station and tweaking the numbers
slightly to give one side an edge.

Election fraud is possible in any system, but it's a lot easier when the
system is purely computer-based.

------
kenesom1
In 2013, the supreme court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. As
a result, "fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first
time in 2016. [...] ﻿This was the first presidential election in 50 years
without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act." [0]

For instance, this was the first election in Wisconsin where voters were
required to show a photo ID, a measure which barred 300,000 people from
voting. Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was only 22,525 votes.

In addition to voter suppression, there were also large unexplained
discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts. [1]

[0] [https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-
voting-...](https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-
rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/)

[1] [http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-
election-...](http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-
results-exit-poll-discrepancies-and-voter-suppression-are)

~~~
james-watson
I can't go to a bar or buy alcohol/tobacco without showing ID.

Why should I be able to vote for the country's future without ID?

~~~
kenesom1
The voter ID law in Wisconsin disqualified 9% of its registered voters. The
right to vote is protected by 5 constitutional amendments and isn't
conditional upon obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Requiring a photo ID is
akin to a poll tax (24th amendment). There's no evidence that photo IDs make
elections more secure, since voter-impersonation fraud is practically non-
existent [0].

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-
voter-i...](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-
laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html)

~~~
james-watson
In what meta-logical wonderland is requiring ID equivalent to a poll tax?

~~~
kenesom1
There are fees involved in getting a photo ID.

~~~
zimpenfish
And that's before you get to the states which require photo ID making it
somewhat more difficult by requiring it to come only from government office X
which is in county Y (obviously with poor public transport) only open on every
third Tuesday between 1000 and 1400.

------
mark_l_watson
A bit off topic but: our country has a real problem that was hit home last
night by a comment made by a dinner guest. He is a democrat (my wife and I are
also registered democrats) and was over joyed at the prospect of a recount
and/or electoral college delegates putting Clinton in the White House.

I pointed out how disruptive this would be to the country and the fact that
Clinton has acknowledged that Trump won, and that Trump will probably end up
with close to 2/3 of the electoral votes, kind of a landslide. I stated that
we could have mass violence in this country if the election were overturned
this late after the election.

Our friend said that mass violence was better than a Trump presidency, which
seems like a really stupid point of view. I find it troubling that his view
seems to be reflected by many people. In my opinion, we should respect the
office of presidency, give Trump a "honeymoon" period to see what he actually
does, and most importantly, get very politically active before the next
interim elections.

~~~
james-watson
> I stated we could have mass violence in this country if the election were
> overturned this late after the election.

"Could"?

There will be a civil war if Trump's presidency is revoked. Count on it.

By the way, how many Democrats are there in the Army, Navy and Air Force? How
about the National Guard? Law enforcement? How many Democrats own guns?

Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."

Be careful what you wish for.

~~~
krapp
>Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump
presidency."

And yet Republicans have been using crypto-revolutionary language for years,
especially after deciding to make the Tea Party their proxy in order to gin up
fears of Obama's "radical marxist ideology".

This isn't a matter of only one party or the other wanting bloodshed. The
Second Amendment has deeply ingrained into the American political
consciousness the premise that revolutionary violence is not only justifiable
but periodically necessary for a free state - that ideal, coupled with the
polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents
as evil and their every political action illegitimate, makes violence seem
inevitable.

Luckily for our Republic, far more American armchair revolutionaries are
willing to talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants
than are willing to do the gardening themselves.

~~~
groovy2shoes
> _the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their
> opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate_

I don't recall such an atmosphere being present in prior elections. I don't
recall _ever_ witnessing so much divisiveness among Americans as I have the
last few weeks. This election was particularly heated, and, frankly, I blame
the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that.

The Clinton campaign somehow managed to convince roughly half of the country
that the other half are _actually_ akin to, _and just as evil as_ , Hitler
supporters. Such thinking has _no_ basis in fact. It's _her_ characterization
of _half of the population of the US_ as "deplorables" that caused such
enormous divisiveness among Americans. In response to the election, many
democrats have resorted to name-calling (racist, sexist, etc.), fraudulent
claims of violence and rape, actual violent attacks on alleged Trump
supporters, and temper-tantrums in general. This reaction only serves to fuel
the division. And, because of Clinton's tactic of demonizing her critics and
non-supporters, her supporters feel _absolutely justified_ in these actions.
After all, if you had a chance to stop the Nazis from taking over, wouldn't
you do _anything_ in your power to do so? Hillary, whether she intended to or
not, gave her supporters a free pass to be utterly ruthless towards everyone
else without compromising their consciences or their morals.

It seems to me like many of Hillary's supporters never even gave Trump a fair
listen, given that all of their arguments against a Trump presidency seem to
be counterfactual bullshit straight out of the campaign propaganda machine.
There are _plenty_ of _legitimate_ arguments to be made against Trump, but
vague accusations that he's a "white supremacist" and a "sexist" and a "Nazi"
seem to be par for the course, and have no empirical foundation _whatsoever_.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and
have a look at the reality around them. Instead of writing off your fellow
Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from.
Seek some understanding of your compatriots instead of being so quick to
deride them.

~~~
EdHominem
> It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as
> "deplorables"

Let me help you read that quote: "you could put half of Trump's supporters
into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"

Half of Trump's supporters. That's roughly 20% of the country. And yes, if
they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, they are deplorable.

> Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and
> have a look at the reality around them.

Cough, yes. You really should lay off the propaganda.

> Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance
> to explain where they're coming from.

No. If you're telling me what to do in my bedroom, I don't give a rat's ass.
If you're racist, I don't care what anecdotes made you that way. If you're
trying to tell me who I can marry, I don't care in the slightest why you feel
that way.

You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit
when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

> Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass

You're equating mean words with Trump's racist scapegoating, his stated intent
to kill families of terrorists, deport people born here, etc. Get a sense of
scale.

> never even gave Trump a fair listen

A fair listen doesn't mean hang on his words, it means to listen until he's
made it obvious that he's clearly unfit for the position.

Maybe you believe he's smarter than all the generals, etc, but if I heard that
ignorant bravado from a coworker _or_ a presidential candidate I'd put them in
the stupid pile.

For years before the election he went on about Obama's birth certificate. Him
and the racists. But yeah, you can tell yourself that he had a real legalistic
reason for asking Obama but not Clinton, Bush, etc.

> frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that

I'm sure you do.

~~~
groovy2shoes
> You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a
> fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

> Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

Ironically, I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump
as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the
far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people. The "Social
Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the
last several years, been loudly and publicly shaming people who don't share
their opinions. These are the same people who decry bullying and use their
hashtags to raise awareness about "cyberbullying", and then turn around and
try their best to get some "toxic male" who criticized Anita Sarkeesian in a
tweet _fired from his job_. The same people who emphasize diversity and
equality while systematically silencing and excluding anyone with so-called
"privilege". The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at
"racists" (who may or may not _actually_ be racists — the word gets tossed
around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless) all the while
wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an _actual_ black supremacist
movement.

The reasons for Trump's election are varied, complicated, and much more
nuanced than "toxic masculinity and white privilege".

I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made
even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it. The power of the
president is constitutionally limited for this very reason, checks and
balances and all that. And, frankly, once we got through the primaries, I
wasn't going to like the outcome of this election no matter what. President
Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give
him the shaft), or even Rand Paul (too bad he's a boring, down-to-earth guy
lacking in outrageous, showy behavior or anything particularly radical to put
forward... and, for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC... I wouldn't be
surprised at this point (cash rules everything and whatnot)). I'm more worried
about the American people at this point than I am about the president. Shit's
tense right now.

~~~
EdHominem
> I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a
> kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far
> left making conspicuous attempts to control other people.

Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly
different context.

The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because
you're either in one party or the other...

Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons
though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense
codified.

> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes"
> have, for the last several years, been [...]

Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I
too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need
to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular
attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.

I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other
baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.

> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists"
> (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so
> often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)

Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We
can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for
tweets.

> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black
> supremacist movement.

Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name
of wiping out racism.

> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made
> even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.

I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous
elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.)
The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust,
not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic
messages flying around.

> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the
> DNC to give him the shaft)

I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do
this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post
election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less
chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.

This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting,
that isn't vulnerable to these problems.

> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC

I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much
nasty infighting there way.

> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the
> president.

Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in
power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can
only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll
be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come
along and justify it.

------
transfire
All we do is make excuses.

~~~
chvid
Yes; HRC lost because she ran a bad campaign, not because the voting machines
were hacked.

------
kahrkunne
The whole reason people think it's fraud is because the media led people to
think that Hillary couldn't possibly lose. When she lost, people started
looking for an explanation.

~~~
pavlov
The result of the popular vote reflected the media's interpretation of pre-
election polls: she won by a strong margin, millions of votes. Trump still won
the presidency thanks to the peculiar American system that emphasizes the
mostly arbitrary state lines over popular representation.

Because the results of a single state can swing the total so wildly out of
proportion with the state's population, doing recounts against the paper trail
(which otherwise would never get looked at) seems like a reasonable thing to
do.

~~~
davrosthedalek
The popular vote is meaningless. Everybody knew the system. There is no
incentive to vote in states-not-perceived-as-swing-states. It's not clear from
this election who would have one a straight up popular vote. Also: The voting
system America has is an important step to protect minority groups, that is,
small population states. Maybe the winner-takes-all in the states has to be
modified.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
The president is meant to represent the populace more closely than it does, as
should the House. The Senate is meant to protect less populace states.

Really, the problem is capping the number of representatives at around 450. We
should have something like 1000-3000 members of the house, which if
distributed by population would fix most people's problems with the electoral
college.

Basically, Congress got selfish and broke the balance of power for the country
to entrench their own, and now the states that don't do much have too much
say, and basically slow the country down.

