Let's fix this. Right. Now.

[blimix]

I just gave way more than I've ever donated to anything before. Because *this* is how we prevent a holocaust. Raise money to pay for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

In case you weren't aware, these states suffered statistically impossible flips very late. Diebold Election Systems (later called Premier Election Solutions) and SmartTECH rigged the 2004 election in Ohio (after Diebold's CEO promised to "hand Ohio to Bush") and tried exactly the same thing in 2012, only to be foiled that time by a firewall installed by Anonymous hackers. (Source.) Election Systems & Software bought Premier and sold its assets to Dominion. All three of these flipped states used vote tally machines from Premier, Dominion, and/or ES&S.

Thanks to Lee for these links:

Wisconsin's voting equipment.

Florida's voting equipment.

Pennsylvania's voting equipment.

Edit: Trump currently leads by 74 electoral votes, meaning that Clinton needs to gain back 37 to tie. PA has 20; MI has 16; WI has 10. Flipping all three states back in the recounts would give the election to Clinton. Flipping only PA and MI would put it close enough that it would take only 2 conscientious electors (from any red states) to give the election back to Clinton, which is within the realm of possibility. (Electors are chosen before the primaries and are loyal to parties, not candidates. Trump is no friend to the RNC.)

Further edit: Siderea has further information about audits, which are different from recounts and are also necessary. Also, a petition.

Comments

[beth_leonard]

It's so hard for me to tell the difference between wishful thinking and actual voting problems. Not something I'm giving money to, but I hope they find the answers they're looking for. Jon and I stopped our ACLU memberships the year they supported electronic-only-no-papertrail balloting specifically for political ends.

I no longer remember the details, but they were suing to delay a vote that was likely to go in favor of the Republicans so that more counties could install electronic voting machines. If they delayed the vote until the national elections (one of the Obama ones) then more democrats were likely to turn out and flip the results in their favor.

I still agree with many ACLU stances, but they were so clearly partisan and on the wrong side of that issue that we sent our future freedom-fighting dollar to the EFF instead from that point forward. I'm still on their mailing list and call my senator or congressman when it's appropriate.

The issue remains that I'm solidly against electronic voting machines and tallies, especially those without a paper trail.

--Beth

[blimix.livejournal.com]

The ACLU wasn't trying to prevent a paper trail; they wanted Ohio's Cuyahoga County to start using optical scanners (which leave a paper trail) rather than send the paper votes away to be tabulated elsewhere. When you send the votes away, voters have no way of knowing if they've screwed up the ballot (e.g., by voting for too many candidates). Optical scanners will immediately reject such a ballot, giving voters a chance to correct their error and have their vote count.

[beth_leonard]

The case to which I was referring was a CA election.
--Beth

[blimix.livejournal.com]

You mean the California governor recall election, where they sued to get faulty punch-card machines replaced first, and objected to the dramatic reduction of polling places and Spanish-speaking poll workers in Monterey County? Article. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/recall.court/)

[beth_leonard]

Yup, that's the one. There were no actual problems with the punch-card ballots, it was purely political to delay the election (note that the article doesn't state that there were problems with punch cards, only that the ACLU said that there were) and the machines they were advocating moving to at the time were worse than the existing system.

--Beth

538 doesn't think it was hacking

[beth_leonard]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

FYI, 538 doesn't think it was hacking when you control for race and education in the affected counties.

--Beth

Re: 538 doesn't think it was hacking

[blimix.livejournal.com]

The article never addressed the idea that the vote tallying computers, rather than (only?) the individual voting machines, may have been hacked. It was dismissive of the possibility of election hacking, despite the fact that it has happened before. So I'm going to wait and see. I'm sure a better analysis (than either that one or Bill Palmer's) will come along soon.

Re: 538 doesn't think it was hacking

[beth_leonard]

Entirely possible. I'd like the integrity of our voting systems not to be in doubt.
--Beth

[eirias.livejournal.com]

I am following this obsessively.

What I want is a nationwide audit, on the recommendation of Verified Voting. A full recount is overkill -- the statistician on their board described that path as needlessly expensive and adversarial. I agree with him... but when candidates won't do it, this is the option on the table.

I was flabbergasted at how quickly the campaign raised $2.5M. I haven't donated yet but I'm thinking about it. I'm very conscious that these donors have essentially acted in *my* interest (I'm in Wisconsin, recall) where the government of my own state will not. So in some sense I'm in the debt of these donors.

Forcibly reminding myself that the best outcome is "the election was not hacked," which means that in some sense I have to root for a Trump win, even though the man is utter poison and might well destroy the world. I mean, the best *process* is "we get a true answer as to whether the election was hacked," but we can't want the answer to be "yes." We just can't.

[blimix.livejournal.com]

Given that hacking elections with electronic voting and tallying machines already happens in the U.S., the best outcome is that yes, it happened again, it gets proven, the election flips, Trump is prevented from bringing nuclear firestorm to the whole world, and paper trails become required for all voting.

"Rooting" for a given reality seems pointless; it has little moral consequence beyond priming you toward confirmation bias. I think the Litany of Tarski applies here: If the election was hacked, I desire to believe that the election was hacked. If the election was not hacked, I desire to believe that the election was not hacked.

It certainly applies for me. I want to have a correct belief regarding whether Trump will make it into office, because I need to know whether to continue preparing for the holocaust, or to spend my efforts elsewhere.

Friending you

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

So well-said!

Hey, off-topic: I'm Jess; I just randomly ran across your blog on the Livejournal feed, and I like your style, so I've friended you. I'm afraid there's been little besides politics on my own Lj this month; usually there's more variety - come on over and check it out if you like.

Re: Friending you

[blimix.livejournal.com]

Welcome! Nice job on the link roundup.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Thanks! There are more yet to come.