Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results

[hazlnut]

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com

This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...

Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...

I thought about this -- could Jarred Kushner have pulled something like this off?

if hacking and manipulation of electronic voting had been manipulated on this scale, then someone would have leaked it by now.

it's why the truthers are such idiots, the logistics of their imagined conspiracy would involve thousands of people--and someone always talks.

 

[HenryBHough]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

 

[Lewdog]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

 

[Mac1958]

From the Daily Beast:

Sorry, Hillary Clinton Fans. There’s ‘Zero Evidence’ of Election Hacking.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

 

[Lewdog]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

 

[Lewdog]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

Then you didn't REALLY read the article. The professor goes into great detail on exactly how it can be done and how he proved it can be done.

There is only one way to prove it didn't happen. Count the actual paper ballots. That would solve it once and for all.

 

[blackhawk]

If Hillary had won the election and these people were making the same claim would you support Trump challenging the election result?

 

[westwall]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

Then you didn't REALLY read the article. The professor goes into great detail on exactly how it can be done and how he proved it can be done.

There is only one way to prove it didn't happen. Count the actual paper ballots. That would solve it once and for all.

Good. the shrilary can pay for it like any other candidate. Good luck with that.

 

[Lewdog]

If Hillary had won the election and these people were making the same claim would you support Trump challenging the election result?

I have no problem with anything like that. Isn't the most important thing conserving our democracy and making sure we get things right? As the professor said, we will never know if machines get compromised until we do paper audits of them to make sure. Not only could it change this election... but many elections into the future, and actually cause states to take a closer look at their processes and machines to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A recount has the potential to change Hillary from a figure of depression and pity into a figure of Algoresque lunacy.

So I say...."Recount?" BRING IT ON!

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

Then you didn't REALLY read the article. The professor goes into great detail on exactly how it can be done and how he proved it can be done.

There is only one way to prove it didn't happen. Count the actual paper ballots. That would solve it once and for all.

Then you must be talking about another link but not the OP. The CNN article made no mention of anybody hacking the voting machines.

If we have to go back and hand count paper ballots every time a Democrat loses, then why have the computers at all? Let's go back to the punch card system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no problem with anything like that. Isn't the most important thing conserving our democracy and making sure we get things right? As the professor said, we will never know if machines get compromised until we do paper audits of them to make sure. Not only could it change this election... but many elections into the future, and actually cause states to take a closer look at their processes and machines to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Okay, and what if it didn't happen this time and people just wasted a lot of time and money for nothing? Would you be happy if the next Democrat loses to Trump with the same machines again?

 

[Lewdog]

According to the article I posted, the only thing stopping it from happening is for Clinton to ask for it and pay for it.

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

Then you didn't REALLY read the article. The professor goes into great detail on exactly how it can be done and how he proved it can be done.

There is only one way to prove it didn't happen. Count the actual paper ballots. That would solve it once and for all.

Then you must be talking about another link but not the OP. The CNN article made no mention of anybody hacking the voting machines.

If we have to go back and hand count paper ballots every time a Democrat loses, then why have the computers at all? Let's go back to the punch card system.

I said it wasn't the OP article. I was one I posted directly from the professor.

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

 

[Lewdog]

I have no problem with anything like that. Isn't the most important thing conserving our democracy and making sure we get things right? As the professor said, we will never know if machines get compromised until we do paper audits of them to make sure. Not only could it change this election... but many elections into the future, and actually cause states to take a closer look at their processes and machines to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Okay, and what if it didn't happen this time and people just wasted a lot of time and money for nothing? Would you be happy if the next Democrat loses to Trump with the same machines again?

The article from the professor that started all this... says that he and most experts agree, we should be using paper ballots all the time regardless.

 

[Care4all]

Jill Stein says she wants to contest the elections in those states or something like that, but needs donations or the money to do it....so it could be contestants have to pay for it? i DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED.... does anyone know?

 

[Lewdog]

Jill Stein says she wants to contest the elections in those states or something like that, but needs donations or the money to do it....so it could be contestants have to pay for it? i DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED.... does anyone know?

It just says that the candidate that was the recounts done has to pay for it.

 

[Care4all]

Maybe through a freedom of information act, someone could get permission to evaluate the votes and do some sort of audit on the machines before their next use of the machines? Not to reverse the election results, but to see if these electronic voting machines without the paper trail are even hackable, or the russians had a hand...? I still don't think there would be enough votes to reverse those wins....of Trump's.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think Hillary is doing the right thing by just letting this all go. It's the Trump haters that want to see action. Remember now that the Clintons are no longer connected in politics, they are going to see a drastic reduction in speaking offers and a drastic decrease in what they can charge even if either one of them speaks. And who knows how bad the Clinton foundation will do. They better save their money instead of spending it on long shots like paying these computer people to go see if they can find anything wrong with machines that have no report of malfunction.

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

Then you didn't REALLY read the article. The professor goes into great detail on exactly how it can be done and how he proved it can be done.

There is only one way to prove it didn't happen. Count the actual paper ballots. That would solve it once and for all.

Then you must be talking about another link but not the OP. The CNN article made no mention of anybody hacking the voting machines.

If we have to go back and hand count paper ballots every time a Democrat loses, then why have the computers at all? Let's go back to the punch card system.

I said it wasn't the OP article. I was one I posted directly from the professor.

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

Okay, at least we are on the same page. I read the article, and there are a lot of if's, could have's, and buts in there. Nothing substantial to point that these machines were hacked somehow.

And your expert said this:

"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."

He also points out that these same machines were used since DumBama's first election and through the second. And, I quote "these voting machines are not connected to the internet."

His claim is that it's possible that since the ballots were created on the internet and then placed into the voting machines, malware could have been installed since it's likely they were not secured from malware. Wait a minute! My computer has a malware program and it was free!

Then he says he (and others) were able to break into "some" of those machines. Okay, but it didn't say if they were programmed by the government the way the actual voting machines are. I don't know what kind of protection those voting machines actually have, but according to the OP, those machines are virtually impossible for Russia to hack according to cyber experts, so there must be some security features in there that makes this authors claim invalid

 

[Lewdog]

You obviously didn't read the new article I posted. The machines aren't going to report malfunction, and you won't know if they did malfunction unless you count the paper ballots. The professor in the article hacked one of the very same voting machines they used. He proved it can be done.

I didn't read that in the OP. In fact I went back again to take another look. But I did find something that I now remember:

"But election officials and cybersecurity experts said earlier this month that it is virtually impossible for Russia to influence the election outcome."

So what are they basing their suspicion on, that the election results didn't turn out like they thought it should?

Then you didn't REALLY read the article. The professor goes into great detail on exactly how it can be done and how he proved it can be done.

There is only one way to prove it didn't happen. Count the actual paper ballots. That would solve it once and for all.

Then you must be talking about another link but not the OP. The CNN article made no mention of anybody hacking the voting machines.

If we have to go back and hand count paper ballots every time a Democrat loses, then why have the computers at all? Let's go back to the punch card system.

I said it wasn't the OP article. I was one I posted directly from the professor.

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

Okay, at least we are on the same page. I read the article, and there are a lot of if's, could have's, and buts in there. Nothing substantial to point that these machines were hacked somehow.

And your expert said this:

"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."

He also points out that these same machines were used since DumBama's first election and through the second. And, I quote "these voting machines are not connected to the internet."

His claim is that it's possible that since the ballots were created on the internet and then placed into the voting machines, malware could have been installed since it's likely they were not secured from malware. Wait a minute! My computer has a malware program and it was free!

Then he says he (and others) were able to break into "some" of those machines. Okay, but it didn't say if they were programmed by the government the way the actual voting machines are. I don't know what kind of protection those voting machines actually have, but according to the OP, those machines are virtually impossible for Russia to hack according to cyber experts, so there must be some security features in there that makes this authors claim invalid

He said he was able to hack a machine and change the vote totals, and he did it on the VERY SAME machines that were used in the election.