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:
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.
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.
In Wisconsin, the counties that used paper ballots tended to be less white and better educated.
The linked article says that all counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots, and thus the claim that there is a difference between counties that use paper ballots and other counties "cannot be true". Are you disputing this, or did you perhaps mean to say Pennsylvania instead of Wisconsin?
Absolutely, there is no harm done in double checking. In a way it's weird that in 2016 there is no automatic auditing of all elections for congress and president, given how much is at stake.
I agree completely, this was an extremely important election with a lot of future implications and it, and really all elections, should be meticulously audited. I think there is a lot of pressure to come up with a quick result when the emphasis should be more on accuracy.
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.
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.
Has anyone noticed that "blockchain" has become the new "rewrite"? Except that I've never seen anyone rely on a conspiracy theory to argue for a rewrite.
Or, more likely, Trump sounding off about election rigging puts potential election riggers on notice and lets them know if try it they'll be caught in a recount.
That hasn't stopped claims of up to three million illegal immigrants voting in the presidential election [1].
We know of course there's some illegal immigrant voting (no voter ID laws in some states + lots of illegal immigrants in those states + some very big motivation to vote = yes, of course they'll vote). We just don't know how much. Is it closer to 3 million illegal immigrant votes, or closer to only 30,000 votes?
Trump warning about rigging won't prevent illegal immigrants from going to the polls organically. However, it does put a damper on any potential plans the DNC might've had to have voters drive to critical districts and place votes there, as they've supposedly done in the past [2].
That said, I have a hard time believing the DNC could mobilize enough voters to really change the polls, even targeting key swing counties in key battleground states. Far more likely are rigged machines, like those encountered in early reports in Texas [3].
Of course, anything is possible - Trump could've done some rigging himself! But normally it would be counterproductive to seed the idea in everyone's minds that an election is rigged if you intend to rig it. Just because you won doesn't mean the meme goes away. You just create problems for yourself after you steal the election. Far better to play it like Hillary Clinton and calmly dismiss any talk of rigging: "Oh, posh, there won't be any rigging. Don't be silly!"
Also, as Clinton so aptly pointed out in the third debate, Trump has a tendency to accuse anything he might not win of being rigged (like the Emmys). This is more a general strategy of his than anything else. It's analogous to how ball players and coaches yell at referees that their play calling is atrocious and one-sided, in the hope of influencing things to go their way. In this case, Trump was likely whipping up his base + aiming to discourage any possible / prospective plans to rig things on the other side.
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.
Is it not currently the case that there are redundancy tests (i.e. overconstraint tests / unit tests) on election results already? Would a manual miscount of a vote have a near-nil chance of getting caught?
If so, I totally agree we need to have samples of all elections verified to at least get bounds on error rates.
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.
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]
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.
Since nobody is talking about Trump's claim, but instead on ballot integrity, this political jab is entirely unrelated to the thread. Injecting unrelated volatile political topics into threads is a form of trolling.
Please don't try to prevent people from discussing the actual topic of a thread by derailing them with partisan politics.
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.
That's not entirely true. President Elect Trump himself spent the greater part of a month prior to the election claiming repeatedly that the election was "absolutely" rigged and, if you remember, predicated his unconditional acceptance of the results on his victory. People of a conspiratorial bent were already primed by his muddying of the waters so it shouldn't be a surprise that his own upset victory would be met with challenge.
Not to mention that this entire election cycle was one where bad actors from all directions took advantage of the poor discernment of the American electorate to the point where truth, innuendo, dubious claims and outright lies were given equal weight in the decision making process of many. Informational chaos has now been proven to be a winning strategy (and not just because Trump won) so why wouldn't that carry on post-election?
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.
In my opinion the whole reason people think it's fraud is because a lot of voters seems to think we're in a direct democracy and have no understanding whatsoever what a representative democracy is, what Electorate College is and what purpose it serves. Seriously, stop a random person on the streets and ask them. Everything else is just adding fuel to the fire.
[+] [-] grzm|9 years ago|reply
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
"American Elections Will Be Hacked" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967
"Maryland will audit all votes cast in general election" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396
"Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability" 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
"Votes could be counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12841178
[+] [-] CPLX|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pfooti|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nkurz|9 years ago|reply
The linked article says that all counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots, and thus the claim that there is a difference between counties that use paper ballots and other counties "cannot be true". Are you disputing this, or did you perhaps mean to say Pennsylvania instead of Wisconsin?
[+] [-] flexie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] learnstats2|9 years ago|reply
That's a problem in itself, isn't it? What are the reasons for this demographic difference in how the election is conducted?
[+] [-] zw123456|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justAsking2017|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway7312|9 years ago|reply
That hasn't stopped claims of up to three million illegal immigrants voting in the presidential election [1].
We know of course there's some illegal immigrant voting (no voter ID laws in some states + lots of illegal immigrants in those states + some very big motivation to vote = yes, of course they'll vote). We just don't know how much. Is it closer to 3 million illegal immigrant votes, or closer to only 30,000 votes?
Trump warning about rigging won't prevent illegal immigrants from going to the polls organically. However, it does put a damper on any potential plans the DNC might've had to have voters drive to critical districts and place votes there, as they've supposedly done in the past [2].
That said, I have a hard time believing the DNC could mobilize enough voters to really change the polls, even targeting key swing counties in key battleground states. Far more likely are rigged machines, like those encountered in early reports in Texas [3].
Of course, anything is possible - Trump could've done some rigging himself! But normally it would be counterproductive to seed the idea in everyone's minds that an election is rigged if you intend to rig it. Just because you won doesn't mean the meme goes away. You just create problems for yourself after you steal the election. Far better to play it like Hillary Clinton and calmly dismiss any talk of rigging: "Oh, posh, there won't be any rigging. Don't be silly!"
Also, as Clinton so aptly pointed out in the third debate, Trump has a tendency to accuse anything he might not win of being rigged (like the Emmys). This is more a general strategy of his than anything else. It's analogous to how ball players and coaches yell at referees that their play calling is atrocious and one-sided, in the hope of influencing things to go their way. In this case, Trump was likely whipping up his base + aiming to discourage any possible / prospective plans to rig things on the other side.
[1] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24630-...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-...
[+] [-] i-think|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fanzhang|9 years ago|reply
If so, I totally agree we need to have samples of all elections verified to at least get bounds on error rates.
[+] [-] mzw_mzw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biafra|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|9 years ago|reply
If you mistrust the computer vote count reread the ballots (and manually count them if the doubt persists)
[+] [-] hashkb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenesom1|9 years ago|reply
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-...
[1] http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-...
[+] [-] james-watson|9 years ago|reply
Why should I be able to vote for the country's future without ID?
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] EdHominem|9 years ago|reply
Had the Germans fought a civil war in the 1930s instead of accepting their populist leader they and the rest of the world would have been better off.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] encoderer|9 years ago|reply
Yes, it's alright for people after an election to make an informed assertion that things look irregular and should be double checked.
Yes, it's alright to have a recount even if we think and hope it will change or reveal nothing, especially since it's funded by private donations.
These things are in no way incompatible.
[+] [-] tgb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noobermin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
Please don't try to prevent people from discussing the actual topic of a thread by derailing them with partisan politics.
[+] [-] yladiz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulddraper|9 years ago|reply
It's sponsored by their much less reasonable voting base.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] transfire|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chvid|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kahrkunne|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zuminator|9 years ago|reply
Not to mention that this entire election cycle was one where bad actors from all directions took advantage of the poor discernment of the American electorate to the point where truth, innuendo, dubious claims and outright lies were given equal weight in the decision making process of many. Informational chaos has now been proven to be a winning strategy (and not just because Trump won) so why wouldn't that carry on post-election?
[+] [-] rincebrain|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavlov|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sakopov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]