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

Someone took what he said, misrepresented and used bogus numbers to boot? Shocker!

*snip*

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

The entire article is a very good read, and really makes the case for paper ballots or electronic ballots with voter-verifiable paper receipt.

Bob41213

(491 posts)

7. Geesh, misrepresentation?

Reply to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:34 AM

Nov 2016

Say it isn't so? I'm shocked. I'd be even more shocked if it didn't happen every election.

dragonlady

(3,577 posts)

6. One Wisconsin senate district already has a recount scheduled

Reply to jodymarie aimee (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:30 AM

Nov 2016

Democratic senator Jennifer Shilling ended up with only 56 votes more than her opponent out of over 87,000 cast. He has filed for a recount. Even if a full recount of the state doesn't happen, this would be a golden opportunity to have Democratic witnesses observe the votes for president while recounting the senate race. This district is in the LaCrosse area in western Wisconsin.

Buckeye_Democrat

(14,853 posts)

8. I doubt she does anything.

Reply to jodymarie aimee (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:44 AM

Nov 2016

If fraud that could turn the electoral college is proven, it will happen too late.

Michael Moore can make a movie about it, however, and liberal arts majors can sip lattes as they discuss the film and the ignorant working class in flyover states... so there's that.

triron

(22,002 posts)

9. I am convinced the

Reply to jodymarie aimee (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:09 PM

Nov 2016

election was stolen

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

10. No evidence of hacking, significant doubt cast on the suspicions, the guy who cast the suspicions

Reply to jodymarie aimee (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:16 PM

Nov 2016

saying it isn't likely, but Hillary should go ahead before its too late.

"While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review...".

"Some data scientists and political statisticians, including FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver and The New York Times’ Nate Cohn, cast doubt on the claims, which compared voting in counties that used paper ballots with those that used electronic machines. Silver and Cohn said the suspicious results disappear when controlling for demographic factors like race and education"

"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
Alex Halderman

Hurry!

triron

(22,002 posts)

11. Typical of scientists

Reply to jmg257 (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:22 PM

Nov 2016

to exercise caution about insinuations. I know being a retired scientist myself. Don't try to read to much into how they guard what they say. They are essentially notifying the Clinton camp that something looks fishy. Up to the campaign to initiate anything. I think they should.