
Statistician calls for audit to address election hacking fears - jmcgough
http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/11/22/election-hacking-audit/
======
merpnderp
Nate Silver says "bad news when a finding can't survive a basic sanity check
like this."

[https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801222961541...](https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801222961541816321)

~~~
serge2k
Does Nate Silver have any credibility left when it comes to adjusting numbers
based on assumptions?

Considering how drastically wrong they got things.

~~~
Sebguer
One day I will comprehend how Nate Silver has managed to be, in one election
cycle, vilified for both being TOO bullish on Trump's chances, and then just
as equally vilified for not saying Trump would outright win.

~~~
pfarnsworth
It's the same way that Progressive Liberals call Obama a fascist, but
Conservatives call him a socialist. It obviously can't be both, yet both sides
strenuously believe it.

~~~
vacri
In American parlance, the Nazis were socialist ("it's even in the name"), so
fascists and socialists can cohabitate in the same party.

~~~
umanwizard
Fascism isn't really "far right" in the same way socialism and communism are
"far left". Fascists believe in a mix of typically far-right and typically
far-left ideas. You need more than one dimension (probably at least three or
four) to fit fascism into the political spectrum.

So if one of your axes is "economic protectionism", another is "level of state
intervention in the economy" and a third is "nationalism", and fascism is
pegged to the max on all of those, it's not too unreasonable to call it
"national" (because of the first and third axes) and "socialist" (because of
the second).

~~~
cortesoft
It is almost as if all combinations of political and economic systems can't be
mapped to a one dimensional spectrum...

~~~
myowncrapulence
Yeah but maintaining America's rigid dichotomy ensures we never progress
outside entrenched corporate interests.

------
bbatsell
A completely independent group, led by Alex Halderman (who is 100% legit), has
come to the same conclusion and is quietly demanding that voting machines in
certain suspicious states be forensically audited:

[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)

~~~
lmg643
At the risk of 100 down votes - considering the theory that "Clinton
outperformed where paper ballots were used" \- isn't there an alternate
hypothesis that extra paper ballots could have been submitted by her
supporters, as a lower-tech kind of fraud?

I get that this is a tech site, and we like to think that everything is the
result of smart hackers (even the Trump election! because some Russian hacker
could be the only explanation), but there are low tech options here as well.

The Project Veritas videos, whatever you may think of them, had high level
operatives openly discussing tactics they use to affect elections. A few extra
paper ballots seems like something a motivated person with access to a
photocopier could accomplish.

~~~
nostromo
Or there could simply be another variable.

For example, maybe rural counties are more likely to use paper ballots than
urban counties. (Or any other variable: income, race, geography.)

~~~
inlined
But wouldn't highly urban counties be more likely to vote for Clinton?

~~~
defen
Urban counties in Wisconsin use paper; rural use electronic:
[https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55](https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55)
(Dane County, Milwaukee County, and Brown County have the three biggest cities
and use paper)

------
snowwrestler
The challenge when considering a small anomaly is to explain how the hackers
could have known in advance it would be sufficient to tip the election.

Today, we know the vote totals, so we can look back and say "wow, it's a small
effect, but it would have been enough to tip things the other way."

But hackers working on Nov 8 would have had no idea how the vote was going in
real time. No one does, especially in a state that uses paper ballots for some
counties. The vote count only becomes apparent much later.

So how would the hackers, who were obviously highly motivated to achieve their
desired result, decide that a 7% tweak in a few counties would be enough to
get what they wanted? When they wanted it so badly that they're willing to
commit felonies to get it?

~~~
csydas
As a preface, I do not have enough information from the article to form a
strong opinion on whether or not any misconduct or alteration occurred with
the vote, so attempting to comment in a non-partisan fashion.

But to respond to your post, I don't actually think that based on the premise
of the article and the accusation that exceptional foresight is really
necessary on the part of potential hackers/manipulators like you're
suggesting. There is ample historical data for virtually every county in the
United States as to which way the vote will go, and once the dataset is
loaded, it would be pretty trivial to figure out which districts need someone
to press on the scale a little in favor of one side or another. State-wide,
certain states have swung back and forth from red to blue, but county to
county, the changes are much more predictable. Combine this that you're
looking at a handful of states and not nation wide, and it seems a bit more
possible.

I want to reiterate I'm not making an accusation, but assuming there was a
mechanism that "hackers" could use to influence the results, the scope and
foresight necessary is easily attainable in common datasets online, with
historical data going back pretty far.

~~~
mzw_mzw
You are imagining Russian hackers who have a better idea of county-by-county
voting patterns in rural Wisconsin than expert American pollsters and
statisticians who have been doing this for decades. This theory is not even
remotely credible.

------
rubyfan
The fact that a statistician suggests an audit leads one to believe there is
some evidence or statistical insight here. However there doesn't seem to be
any evidence base, rather a good old "let's just check just in case some bad
guys did something bad!"

I will say it again, "hackers" are the boogie man and worse yet _state actors_
offer any political group an easy way out of having to offer any evidence to
cast doubt or dispersion against anything counter to their worldview or
agenda.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>"hackers" are the boogie man

While there is a great deal of misinformation and ignorance in the media
regarding info sec, labeling hackers as "boogie men" is irresponsible because
it implies the threat is not real.

~~~
rubyfan
That's the problem, it _is_ a threat that is plausible but without statistical
or forensic evidence it is F.U.D.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
F.U.D. is the impetus for info sec audits/analyses. An audit is where the
desired forensic evidence would come from.

------
whoopdedo
The only "hacking" going on in the election was done when voting district
boundaries were drawn. Gerrymandering is an endemic problem in the U.S. as
most recently evidenced in Wisconsin[1]. And it's a more effective way to
steal an election than any behind the scenes subterfuge involving individual
ballots.

[1] [http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307176-court-strikes-
do...](http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307176-court-strikes-down-
wisconsin-district-lines)

~~~
andrewpi
Those boundaries are fairly irrelevant to the presidential election process. I
believe only Maine assigns electors based on who wins a particular district
versus who wins the overall statewide race.

~~~
schoen
I was just curious whether there was any historical evidence that _the state
borders themselves_ were ever a result of gerrymandering. Then I remembered an
exhibit over at the Oakland Museum of California about proposals for the
borders of California at the time of its statehood, which included debates
about the effects of including lots of Mormons to the east (or not). A
discussion summarizing some of these debates, but with a slightly different
emphasis, can be found in

[http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/Stat...](http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/State_Boundaries/ca-
nv-border-p1-2.pdf)

It might be possible to interpret some of the proposals for the shape of the
California-Nevada border as reflecting a kind of gerrymandering or
considerations of political strategy. Maybe that's historically true of other
U.S. state boundaries? (But the states haven't generally redrawn their
boundaries in response to demographic changes over time.)

~~~
ejstronge
I have no background in this area, but saw an interesting allusion to your
idea the other day[1]

    
    
        Republicans in Congress passed the 1862 Homestead Act, offering free land to settlers who would move to territories 
        that would eventually become states — creating more Senate seats and Electoral College votes for a Republican Party 
        eager to keep government control away from Southern Democrats. They even managed to divide the Dakota Territory into 
        two states, worth twice the political power.
    
    

1\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-
appl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-
the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html)

------
brink
If he's legitimately trying to find the true winner objectively then I'm all
for it.

One thing that scares me is when people try to spread uncertainty and fear
through the ruse of science and numbers with a bias.

------
dmfdmf
This is just the Dems casting doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's presidency
because they can't believe it. The converse on the Reps side was casting doubt
on the legitimacy of Obama via the birth certificate. The breathless articles
in the MSM pointing out that Clinton got the majority vote are driven by the
same psychological motives and just as irrelevant (i.e. the president isn't
elected by popular vote).

To be clear I am not saying that the Dems (nor the Reps) are intentionally
casting doubt as a planned strategy but that that is the normal psychological
reaction when something bad or impossible has happened to you it is normal to
look for a "rational" explanation. Once the left gets through the 4 or 6
stages (whatever those are) of grief I am hopeful that they will be a fine
opposition party to Trump's buffoonery and the nation will carry on.

~~~
AbrahamParangi
While I agree that Trump's election being illegitimate is a narrative many (on
the left) want to hear, I disagree with your characterization of the popular
vote as irrelevant.

I think most Americans consider the electoral college a funny historical quirk
and 'getting more votes' is the source of the mandate to rule. Except when
popular vote splits happen in which case everyone remembers that we've got a
bizarre system that very, very occasionally returns a different result than
the popular vote.

Although, who knows. Of the 5 popular/electoral splits that have ever
happened, 2 happened in the past 16 years. Maybe shifting demographics will
preserve republican electoral competitiveness even if their fraction of the
total vote shrinks.

~~~
dmfdmf
It is irrelevant in two ways. First, the constitution stipulates election via
the Electoral College, not the popular vote, so until that changes the point
is moot. Second, if the EC was abolished before the election then BOTH
campaigns would have run completely different strategies. The current tallies
are not relevant to a direct popular vote outcome so its impossible to say
under that scenario who would have won. Its pure speculation to assume Clinton
would have won under different rules and thus irrelevant.

------
slicktux
If people are this paranoid now, while this country is a democratic republic,
then just imagine how bad it will get when they have it their way and all of
the U.S becomes a Democracy. . .

[http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/)
there is a reasons as to why our founding fathers made this country a
Democratic Republic rather than a Democracy. . .

~~~
colechristensen
Not quite what those words mean – a president elected with a national popular
vote would still very much be a democratic republic. The "democratic"
adjective adds weight to how representative government will be elected amongst
the population, "democratic republic" doesn't imply something like a electoral
college.

And nobody is really advocating for a direct Athenian-style democracy in the
US (I'm sure _someone_ is but that's not this) and removing the electoral
college would make us quite a bit more like the rest of the free world.

~~~
slicktux
Okay, what then is the purpose, or benefits, of our vote counting for
president elections and when does it stop being a democratic republic and
instead a democracy?

~~~
colechristensen
The benefits of a national popular election for president are getting rid of
the silly game built up around winning the electoral college. People say that
the electoral college means less populated states get a say ... but (for
example) Trump came to my state of 5.5 million exactly once for a public event
and didn't even leave the airport.

A national popular vote would mean that Florida and Ohio don't get a
disproportional advantage and also that winning the presidency doesn't require
you to be good at playing the electoral college or district drawing game. It
means that every vote counts a little bit more and that wherever a candidate
goes they can make a difference for their final vote count.

I'm not really sure that if (literally) Hitler won the electoral college vote
that the electors would go against their district's election so we're left
with deciding which game is better to play – the popular vote game or the
electoral college game.

I think the electoral vote game could reduce the divisiveness of elections and
lead candidates to really find and fight for the middle of the political
spectrum. Maybe some game theorists have real science behind the effects of
the different strategies.

It stops being a republic when most of the ruling decisions are put directly
to the populace. Go to war with Canada? National popular vote. Legalize
catnip? National popular vote. National budget? National Popular vote. Ratify
a treaty? National popular vote. Vim or Emacs? Vim.

Places like California with their multitude of referendums approach this but
are still very far away from removing the republic moniker.

~~~
slicktux
Well, we are on a realm of speculation and subjectivity; but I beg to differ;
the majority of people (at least the ones that I talk to) do not even
acknowledge that their vote does not count and instead believe that it is a
democracy; that is why people go out to vote. I really have nothing other to
say than this: I think it would be better if people were educated about our
constitutional system; and it would send a stronger message if NO ONE voted
for president; then they can worry about the change they want all within their
states! This whole, vote for this president because he/she is the lesser evil
is what is destroying this country. . .

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit
of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries
has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to
seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or
later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than
his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation,
on the ruins of Public Liberty.” (Washington 1976)

~~~
colechristensen
Personally I think we should ditch BOTH the electoral college and fist-past-
the-post elections.

If there are several candidates from each party (including independent and
third party candidates) and voting is done using one of the many ranking
systems that allows you to do more than vote against a candidate, we could be
in a much better situation.

~~~
slicktux
Yes, and it all makes sense in this state of current affairs, but
unfortunately (in my opinion) it is not that easy; by sticking to that mindset
we once again get into the problems we have today; say we do it as you
propose, and we have a great president running for office and he has all these
proposals like free college, environmental energy subsidies, and whatever else
you may think of; even though I agree with them, it would still be pointless
for me to vote for him because I'm a constitutionalist (libertarian) and all
those programs would be unconstitutional, just like the NSA spying; hence for
consistency (thanks to the constitution) I disagree with everything you are
saying, but I agree if I step into the paradox we call our state of current
affairs; My views may make me sound like a fundamentalist, and in essence I
am, but think about it; It should not matter who the president is and neither
should our vote for president. You seem to understand how our different
branches of government work hence you should know that the states are where
the real, genuine, constitutional changes should take place; not within the
Federal Branch (do not confuse powers with rights); it is all about checks and
balances; you cannot have a federal government that taxes for social programs
and then disagree when it taxes for programs that kill innocents, spy on the
people, or bail out corporations. . .hence consistency and the argument that
voting for president should not matter; because you must keep in mind that
social norms influence individual behaviors and perceptions. . .and the
democratic norm only forms what George Washington warned us about in the
previous quote I referenced. . . this is not only pragmatism, it is mindsets.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
These statisticians knew about these issues before hand. It would have been a
lot more believable if they had talked about these audits before the election,
when everybody and their brother was blasting Trump for saying that the
election could be rigged. Talking about them afterward just makes them seem
like they have an agenda.

~~~
pbstark
We have been calling for audits for more than a decade. I've piloted these
audits in about 20 counties, published the methods and results in peer-
reviewed journals, worked with local and state election officials to make them
logistically efficient and to draft laws, etc. But this is the first election
in a decade in which there seems to be the political will to do what we should
do after every election: double-check the paper to ensure that errors, bugs,
misconfiguration, or outright hacking did not alter the outcome.

------
rusbus
I'm not sure what to think about this. It seems like overturning the result at
this point could be even more destabilizing than a Trump presidency. Though
ironically unfounded, it will look to a Trump support like the election truly
was rigged.

~~~
Dagwoodie
Without California, Hillary loses the Popular vote as well. California
'single' handedly gave it to her. Some already think it was the Illegal-Alien
vote that gave that to her in the first place.

~~~
lostcolony
I don't understand how that is relevant.

She could have lost (to pick a blue state at random) Vermont and still held
the popular vote. What you're saying is that by removing the most populous
blue state, she'd lose the popular vote. How is that relevant? States are
arbitrary boundaries; we could slice and dice California up into 55 states,
giving each one an electoral vote. Now we could remove any one of those and
she'd still maintain the popular vote. We're allowing an arbitrary division
determine our president, rather than a somewhat less arbitrary "majority of
voters".

But all -that- aside, the parent comment was referencing the OP. Literally
nothing was said about the popular vote; the OP is about possible voting
irregularities in some of the swing states that might lead to Hillary also
clinching the electoral college majority (and the parent comment was saying
how they're not very happy with the prospect of a recount).

~~~
alphapapa
Do you think that there's anything to the idea of compartmentalization? For
example, suppose people in one area were so homogeneous in circumstances and
concerns that they were of universally the same political opinion. By
pandering to that one area, a candidate could win a large number of votes. In
contrast, to win votes all across the country, a candidate would need to have
wider appeal, taking into account the concerns of the wider population.

It seems like the electoral college helps compartmentalize the votes,
preventing an "overflow" of opinion in certain areas from outweighing the
wider population's combined opinion.

------
pfarnsworth
When will people realize that Change.org is absolutely and completely useless?

------
prostoalex
Not completely out of the question as Russian forces did attempt a dry run of
election disruption in Ukraine, as cheerfully boasted by pro-Russian rt.com
here [https://www.rt.com/news/161332-ukraine-president-election-
vi...](https://www.rt.com/news/161332-ukraine-president-election-virus/)

There's not a lot of public information available on technicalities of voting,
but would be interesting to dig deeper on who controls the voting machines,
how are they checked for malware, who controls the links from the machines to
the local severs, how's the data transferred between the local and regional
electoral commissions, what's the feasibility of having a third party covertly
inserting proxy servers into the process, etc.

------
meowface
Even though this is probably politically motivated, Trump supporters were
calling for such things before the election, so most of them can't really
complain.

------
peller
Link to the mentioned petition:

[https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-
the-2016-preside...](https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-
the-2016-presidential-election)

~~~
jonahrd
I'm in Quebec, so all of the Change.org controls appear to me in French. There
is no option to change this unless I log in (never a problem on actual
Canadian websites which typically have a language button in the corner)

What a terrible design decision.

~~~
wyck
There is a language switcher in the footer no login required.

~~~
slededit
Still bad design. This is almost universally put in the top right.

~~~
mercer
I disagree. True, the first place I look is the top right. But the second
place is the footer because I've come across a bunch of sites where this is
the place to change language.

It's common enough, I think, to be at the very least 'adequate' deesign.

------
flashman
Various people are trying to explain the Wisconsin result, in which Trump-
voting counties were three times more likely to have electronic voting than
Clinton-voting counties. I made this image to illustrate:
[http://i.imgur.com/AZNr2Hd.png](http://i.imgur.com/AZNr2Hd.png)

It's probably entirely explicable by demographic factors, but the difference
is stark and certainly prompts curiosity.

~~~
themgt
That's really not a good way to graph the data. If you're rigging an election
(within a state) you win by total votes, not how many counties are won.
Showing which counties tipped one way or the other by voting machine type is
far more likely to reflect demographic factors.

~~~
flashman
It's a graph which explains why people are curious, not why the data looks
that way, so it's fine.

If you're rigging an election, you're going to rig electronic machines because
it's easier than changing thousands of paper ballots. Therefore in a rigged
election with a mix of paper and electronic voting, you would expect the
electronic voting to favour the rigged candidate. Of course, on summary
numbers this is indistinguishable from perfectly normal activity.

------
paulddraper
Not exactly on point, but in general I've seen concern for voting fraud rise,
even from people who formerly said concerns were overblown and racist.

~~~
myko
Voting fraud doesn't seem to be actually happening. Voter suppression on the
other hand does.

~~~
alphapapa
Honest question: How do you interpret the undercover video of Scott Foval as
not indicative of election fraud? He explicitly confesses to violating federal
election law.

Is he not actually Scott Foval?

Is he lying to the person he's talking to?

Or are you saying that, while he is telling the truth and has committed those
acts, they didn't amount to enough to make a difference? If so, how do you
know that, based on what he said? Why do you think they would spend time and
money on those things, and risk prosecution, if they didn't think it could
make a difference? Why do you think that there aren't people like him doing
the same thing in other places?

Looking at the video of him, it is clear that election fraud is happening. The
question is to what extent.

Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in
places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how
you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face.

~~~
myko
O'Keefe is widely known for editing videos to create false narratives (see:
the ACORN debacle). I don't really trust anything he puts out at this point.

> Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in
> places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how
> you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face.

Not true. It is true that people have casted absentee/early ballots and then
died. It's also true that people with the same name as someone who has died
has voted. When these examples come up they typically fall into those
categories.

------
maverick_iceman
Hmm, why no call for audit in 2008 or 2012? Can the fact that a Democrat won
have something to do with this?

~~~
ejstronge
> Hmm, why no call for audit in 2008 or 2012? Can the fact that a Democrat won
> have something to do with this?

It could also be due to the fact that a Democrat clearly won both the
Electoral College and the popular vote by a wide margin.

------
jaypaulynice
I don't know much about the election machines, but is there any reason for
them to be connected to the WWW? If they're not connected to the WWW, then
only someone with physical access to the machines could hack them...right?
What's the likelihood of that?

~~~
brbsix
Presumably components of the hardware or software could be compromised
somewhere upstream by nation-state actors like the CIA and NSA's TAO. It's not
as if Iran's nuclear facilities were connected to the Internet and that didn't
exactly keep their centrifuges safe.

~~~
jaypaulynice
Right...definitely possible, but this would have to be extremely well
coordinated. Chances are each state/city has different
machines/hardware/software, different order of candidates on the ballots,
etc...so for a random hacker to hack the results would be only if the machines
are connected to the internet...I'm hoping they're not!

------
ChicagoBoy11
About half a year ago a paper was posted here on HN about research which
conclusively demonstrated vote manipulation in several provinces in Russia:
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.6059](https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.6059) The
technique essentially uses the non-random distribution of round numbers in
vote counts as indication that some sort of manipulation has taken place.

At the very least, it would seem prudent (or perhaps a fun project for
someone) to check if election returns in this past election pass this test.

------
mzw_mzw
Weird. I distinctly recall that a few weeks ago refusing to accept the results
of an election was treason. Lots of people saying that, including here on HN.
What changed, I wonder?

~~~
baconner
There's a bit of a difference between saying in advance that you won't accept
the results "Unless I win" and asking for a recount with some evidence of
potential irregularities in hand after the election is concluded.

It wasn't wrong of Gore to push for a recount in 2000 _within the bounds of
the law_ so long as when that process was complete he conceded, asked his
supporters to let it go, and let the country get back to business.

------
shuri
It would be good to get more transparency into the process.

Basically, I'm thinking a giant anonymized excel sheet. I can generate my
anonymous id and verify that I appear correctly. That's one part.

The other parts are making sure only real people voted (harder) and that the
counting was done correctly (easier).

------
awqrre
Hopefully, if they do that, they don't only audit electronic votes, but also
all paper ballots (make sure that all ballots are legit (ie: if someone didn't
vote, someone else didn't cast a vote for them) and no ballots disappeared)

------
zw123456
I was wondering when we would finally see this, when I first saw the numbers a
couple of weeks ago what I saw was pretty obvious evidence. I think I an
election of this magnitude it makes sense to have everything thoroughly
audited.

~~~
rdtsc
> hen I first saw the numbers a couple of weeks ago what I saw was pretty
> obvious evidence.

I was surprised by the result as well. But curious what did you see as obvious
evidence?

------
myf01d
We live in a post-democracy world, the people should choose whatever the
elites tell them to, or the outcome gets changed if it's the not the right
answer (Brexit, Austria, Trump, Le Pen?).

~~~
mch82
Who are the "elites" you're referencing?

------
baytrailcat
Reading these comments, I am having a serious Deja Vu. This exact discussion
took place in Slashdot after 2004 re-election of Bush (a study pointing out
anomalies came out then too).

------
wallace_f
Is there a practical method to make the voting process transparent to audit
yet able to maintain individual privacy?

Ideally the people should be able to audit the process.

~~~
umanwizard
What's wrong with normal paper ballots?

~~~
wallace_f
Conceivably there could still be fraud in counting the ballots.

~~~
alphapapa
It's a lot harder to commit fraud when there's physical evidence that anyone
can recount, and the counting is done in a public place observed by a variety
of people, and the ballots cannot so easily be tampered with without leaving
physical evidence.

With computers, even if you bring in a certified, gold-master CD containing
the software under armed guard, it's still a black box. There's no way to
conclusively prove that the machine counts accurately and fairly. Tampering
can be done without a trace. Compromise is always a concern.

Paper is always the best choice. Who cares if it takes longer to count.

~~~
wallace_f
Ok, I was just asking a question.

I haven't thought about it enough, but it does sound like paper _is_ better
than what we have at the moment. I don't disagree with you there.

If there's a possible way the process can be audited by the public without
sacrificing privacy, that should be implemented.

------
tn13
This is BS.

------
known
[https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/](https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/)
is doing it

------
blondie9x
Here is the change.org petition we can all sign to make a difference:

[https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-
the-2016-preside...](https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-
the-2016-presidential-election)

Every vote should count correctly.

