An interesting weekend ahead with now 2 million more popular votes voting for Clinton. Critical mass for at least more strategy of tension.
Sample audit cost: 9 to 10 cents per hand-counted vote, and about 1.2 cents per voter in the election
A growing number of academics and activists are calling for US authorities to fully audit or recount the 2016 presidential election vote in key battleground states, in case the results could have been skewed by foreign hackers.
The loose coalition, which is urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to join its fight, is preparing to deliver a report detailing its concerns to congressional committee chairs and federal authorities early next week, according to two people involved.
The document, which is currently 18 pages long, focuses on concerns about the results in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin…
Having consistently led Trump in public opinion polls for months preceding election day in all three midwestern states, Clinton narrowly lost Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and may yet lose Michigan, where a final result has still not been declared.
Curiosity about Wisconsin has centred on apparently disproportionate wins that were racked up by Trump in counties using electronic voting compared with those that used only paper ballots. The apparent disparities were first widely publicised earlier this month by David Greenwald, a journalist for the Oregonian…
Still, dozens of professors specialising in cybersecurity, defense, and elections have in the past two days signed an open letter to congressional leaders stating that they are “deeply troubled” by previous reports of foreign interference, and requesting swift action by lawmakers.
“Our country needs a thorough, public congressional investigation into the role that foreign powers played in the months leading up to November,” the academics said in their letter, while noting they did not mean to “question the outcome” of the election itself.
No voting system is perfect. Nearly all US elections today are counted using electronic voting systems. Such voting systems have produced result-changing errors through problems with hardware, software, and procedures.1 Errors can also occur in hand counting of ballots or in the compiling of results. Even serious error can go undetected if results are not audited effectively.
Well-designed and properly performed post-election audits can significantly mitigate the threat of error, and should be considered integral to any vote counting system. A post-election audit in this document refers to hand-counting votes on paper records and comparing those counts to the corresponding vote counts originally reported, as a check on the accuracy of election results, and resolving discrepancies using accurate hand counts of the paper records as the benchmark. Such audits are arguably the most economical component of a quality voting system, adding a very small cost2 for a large set of benefits.
The benefits of such audits include:
-
Revealing when recounts are necessary to verify election outcomes
-
Finding error whether accidental or intentional
-
Deterring fraud
-
Providing for continuous improvement in the conduct of elections
-
Promoting public confidence in elections
Post-election audits differ from recounts. Post-election audits routinely check voting system performance in contests,3 regardless of how close margins of victory appear to be. Recounts repeat ballot counting in special circumstances, such as when preliminary results show a close margin of victory. Post-election audits that detect errors can lead to a full recount.
When an audited contest is also recounted, duplicate work can be avoided. Voting systems should have reliable audit records. Best effort audits should be performed even if the technology does not support optimal audits, or even if the laws do not permit optimal remedies. No single model for post-election audits is best for all states. Election traditions, laws, administrative structure and voting systems vary widely. Nonetheless, there are guiding principles that apply across all states. As states develop their own audit models, the public should have the opportunity to help shape those regulations.4
2 For instance, in Minnesota after the 2006 general election, the cost of the wages for election judges (pollworkers) to count votes has been estimated at $24,500 to $27,000 statewide – 9 to 10 cents per hand-counted vote, and about 1.2 cents per voter in the election (www.ceimn.org/...). While audit costs will vary depending on the scope of the audits and other considerations, they can be expected to be a small fraction of election administration costs.
(August 2015)
The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.
The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation…
The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right….
People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had
over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.