SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Security Experts Back Up Jill Stein's Demand for Manual Recount
'To determine whether the reported winner actually won requires verifying the results as accurately as possible, which in turn requires manually examining the underlying paper records'
Nov 29, 2016
Security experts on Monday testified in support of Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, who is spearheading a by-hand election recount initiative in Wisconsin.
Unless a judge rules in her favor, the state will likely allow its 72 counties to decide whether they want to conduct the process manually or by machine. On Monday, a group of academics and other specialists agreed with Stein's argument that an automated recount would risk an incorrect tally. President-elect Donald Trump won Wisconsin 47.9 percent to Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's 46.9 percent--a margin of just over 22,000 votes.
A manual count would be the only way to ensure that there had been no hacking, the experts said.
"It is not possible to determine with certainty the absence of malicious software hiding within what might appear to be many thousands of lines of legitimate software code," Poorvi Vora, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in an affidavit (pdf) on Monday.
In another affidavit, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor Ronald Rivest quoted (pdf) the famous proverb, "Trust, but verify."
"We have learned the hard way that almost any computer system can be broken into by a sufficiently determined, skillful, and persistent adversary," he said.
And professor Philip Stark of the University of California at Berkeley noted (pdf) that Wisconsin should not rule out simple software problems with the ballot scanning machines.
"The amount of error required to alter the outcome can easily be less than the error that an optical scan system makes in inferring and tabulating voter intent from the ballots or other paper record," he wrote. "For instance, the software may miss a light or incomplete mark, interpreting it as an undervote, whereas a human being inspecting the paper record would see the voter's intent clearly."
"To determine whether the reported winner actually won requires verifying the results as accurately as possible, which in turn requires manually examining the underlying paper records," he said.
Stein is also pushing for election recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Although the deadline to request a per-precinct recount reportedly passed on November 21, Stein's campaign sued Pennsylvania on Monday to initiate a statewide recount. The campaign will also request a manual recount in Michigan on Wednesday, the last day to do so. Michigan certified Trump as its winner on Monday.
By Monday, Stein had raised nearly $7 million for the effort--although she tweeted on Tuesday that Wisconsin would charge $3.5 million for a recount, "an outrageous increase from the initial estimate of $1.1M."
"Americans deserve a voting system we can trust," Stein said. "After a presidential election tarnished by the use of outdated and unreliable machines and accusations of irregularities and hacks, people of all political persuasions are asking if our election results are reliable. We must recount the votes so we can build trust in our election system. We need to verify the vote in this and every election so that Americans of all parties can be sure we have a fair, secure, and accurate voting system."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Security experts on Monday testified in support of Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, who is spearheading a by-hand election recount initiative in Wisconsin.
Unless a judge rules in her favor, the state will likely allow its 72 counties to decide whether they want to conduct the process manually or by machine. On Monday, a group of academics and other specialists agreed with Stein's argument that an automated recount would risk an incorrect tally. President-elect Donald Trump won Wisconsin 47.9 percent to Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's 46.9 percent--a margin of just over 22,000 votes.
A manual count would be the only way to ensure that there had been no hacking, the experts said.
"It is not possible to determine with certainty the absence of malicious software hiding within what might appear to be many thousands of lines of legitimate software code," Poorvi Vora, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in an affidavit (pdf) on Monday.
In another affidavit, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor Ronald Rivest quoted (pdf) the famous proverb, "Trust, but verify."
"We have learned the hard way that almost any computer system can be broken into by a sufficiently determined, skillful, and persistent adversary," he said.
And professor Philip Stark of the University of California at Berkeley noted (pdf) that Wisconsin should not rule out simple software problems with the ballot scanning machines.
"The amount of error required to alter the outcome can easily be less than the error that an optical scan system makes in inferring and tabulating voter intent from the ballots or other paper record," he wrote. "For instance, the software may miss a light or incomplete mark, interpreting it as an undervote, whereas a human being inspecting the paper record would see the voter's intent clearly."
"To determine whether the reported winner actually won requires verifying the results as accurately as possible, which in turn requires manually examining the underlying paper records," he said.
Stein is also pushing for election recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Although the deadline to request a per-precinct recount reportedly passed on November 21, Stein's campaign sued Pennsylvania on Monday to initiate a statewide recount. The campaign will also request a manual recount in Michigan on Wednesday, the last day to do so. Michigan certified Trump as its winner on Monday.
By Monday, Stein had raised nearly $7 million for the effort--although she tweeted on Tuesday that Wisconsin would charge $3.5 million for a recount, "an outrageous increase from the initial estimate of $1.1M."
"Americans deserve a voting system we can trust," Stein said. "After a presidential election tarnished by the use of outdated and unreliable machines and accusations of irregularities and hacks, people of all political persuasions are asking if our election results are reliable. We must recount the votes so we can build trust in our election system. We need to verify the vote in this and every election so that Americans of all parties can be sure we have a fair, secure, and accurate voting system."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Security experts on Monday testified in support of Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, who is spearheading a by-hand election recount initiative in Wisconsin.
Unless a judge rules in her favor, the state will likely allow its 72 counties to decide whether they want to conduct the process manually or by machine. On Monday, a group of academics and other specialists agreed with Stein's argument that an automated recount would risk an incorrect tally. President-elect Donald Trump won Wisconsin 47.9 percent to Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's 46.9 percent--a margin of just over 22,000 votes.
A manual count would be the only way to ensure that there had been no hacking, the experts said.
"It is not possible to determine with certainty the absence of malicious software hiding within what might appear to be many thousands of lines of legitimate software code," Poorvi Vora, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in an affidavit (pdf) on Monday.
In another affidavit, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor Ronald Rivest quoted (pdf) the famous proverb, "Trust, but verify."
"We have learned the hard way that almost any computer system can be broken into by a sufficiently determined, skillful, and persistent adversary," he said.
And professor Philip Stark of the University of California at Berkeley noted (pdf) that Wisconsin should not rule out simple software problems with the ballot scanning machines.
"The amount of error required to alter the outcome can easily be less than the error that an optical scan system makes in inferring and tabulating voter intent from the ballots or other paper record," he wrote. "For instance, the software may miss a light or incomplete mark, interpreting it as an undervote, whereas a human being inspecting the paper record would see the voter's intent clearly."
"To determine whether the reported winner actually won requires verifying the results as accurately as possible, which in turn requires manually examining the underlying paper records," he said.
Stein is also pushing for election recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Although the deadline to request a per-precinct recount reportedly passed on November 21, Stein's campaign sued Pennsylvania on Monday to initiate a statewide recount. The campaign will also request a manual recount in Michigan on Wednesday, the last day to do so. Michigan certified Trump as its winner on Monday.
By Monday, Stein had raised nearly $7 million for the effort--although she tweeted on Tuesday that Wisconsin would charge $3.5 million for a recount, "an outrageous increase from the initial estimate of $1.1M."
"Americans deserve a voting system we can trust," Stein said. "After a presidential election tarnished by the use of outdated and unreliable machines and accusations of irregularities and hacks, people of all political persuasions are asking if our election results are reliable. We must recount the votes so we can build trust in our election system. We need to verify the vote in this and every election so that Americans of all parties can be sure we have a fair, secure, and accurate voting system."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.