SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Simple processing errors by the voting machines cannot be ruled out, one security expert said. (Photo: s.e. smith/flickr/cc)
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."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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."
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."