Audit the Vote. Fight for Truth.

Posted on by

Every four years when we vote for President there are stories about ballots being miscounted or results being manipulated. It’s an American tradition to wonder if a close election was stolen, especially when your candidate unexpectedly lost. That tradition has only gotten stronger as electronic voting machines have become more common.

When I voted two weeks ago, I pushed invisible buttons on a big screen that made little ‘X’s appear, followed by a red button marked “Cast Your Vote”.  As always, I assumed my votes were accurately transmitted somewhere and were properly counted. It’s a matter of trusting our political institutions and civil servants.

But these days it’s also a matter of trusting the private companies that sell the machines and software that count millions of votes. That’s why, for years now, experts on voting have called for changes that would make electronic voting more secure and easier to audit. For instance, all voting machines should create a paper trail that could be used to check the results (I don’t even know if the machines we use in our county create a paper trail that could be reviewed if the results were audited).

This year, of course, there is another reason to wonder about the election results. Russia has some of the best computer hackers in the world and it’s almost certain that they successfully interfered with our election. National security officials released a statement in October accusing Russia hackers of collecting and distributing thousands of personal emails from the Clinton campaign. We don’t know precisely what effect the publication of those emails had on the campaign, but it’s fair to say it didn’t help the Democrats.

Stolen emails weren’t the only subject of that October statement: 

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company… [Our agencies] assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

Nevertheless, [the Department of Homeland Security] continues to urge state and local election officials to be vigilant and seek cyber-security assistance from DHS. A number of states have already done so. DHS is providing several services to state and local election officials to assist in their cyber-security. These services include cyber “hygiene” scans of Internet-facing systems, risk and vulnerability assessments, information sharing about cyber incidents, and best practices for securing voter registration databases and addressing potential cyber threats.

All right, so considering the longstanding concerns about electronic voting in general, and the likelihood that Russia tried to access some of our election systems this year, it isn’t crazy to be more concerned than usual about this election. Throw in Clinton’s surprising defeat in a few key states where she was expected to win, plus some strange-looking results from those states, and we’re now seeing stories like these from the Guardian: 

“Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states” (here)

“Jill Stein prepares to request election recounts in battleground states” (here)

It should be noted that it wasn’t the Clinton campaign (or even the Stein campaign) that began calling for an audit of the election results. Two election experts, Ron Rivest and Philip Stark, made their case a few days ago in USA Today. (Rivest is the Institute Professor at MIT and a member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines Development Committee, while Stark is Associate Dean of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at UC Berkeley and a member of the board of advisers of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission).

They’ve been joined by J. Alex Halderman, who is Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan and the Director of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security & Society. Halderman is an acknowledged expert in the field of electronic voting security. This is from a statement he posted today:

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. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

Halderman also explains how a foreign power might tamper with the election in a few key counties in a few key states, giving an unearned Electoral College victory to a walking disaster.

We don’t know yet whether Clinton will request recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and possibly pull out her own Electoral College victory. It’s rumored that some senior Democrats don’t want to rock the boat and give credence to T—p’s claim that the election would be “rigged”. I sincerely hope that’s not the case. This isn’t one of those times when it would be better for the country if everyone relaxed and supported the apparent President-elect. (That’s what many leading Democrats said during the 2000 election fiasco and look where it got us.)

Finally, as an example of the kind of unaudited result that’s drawing attention, below are the voting histories of two counties in Michigan going back to 1980. Macomb and Oakland counties have usually shown similar levels of support for Democrats and Republicans in presidential elections. 

For some reason, however, this year the two counties swerved apart. It looks like Macomb County’s support for the Democrat went way down and its support for the Republican went way up. That’s in comparison to Oakland County’s vote this year and Macomb County’s election history. Maybe it’s just one of those things. Maybe it’s the beginning of a new voting pattern in Macomb County. Or maybe it’s evidence that something went seriously wrong in a key county in Michigan and needs to be looked into. Who knows? (Outside Russia, I mean.)

Macomb 
Democratic		 Oakland 
Democratic		  Delta Macomb
Republican		 Oakland 
Republican		  Delta
1980 40.4% 35.6% 4.80% 51.0% 54.7% -3.70%
1984 33.3% 32.8% 0.50% 66.2% 66.7% -0.50%
1988 38.8% 37.8% 1.00% 60.3% 61.3% -1.00%
1992 37.4% 38.6% -1.20% 42.3% 43.6% -1.30%
1996 49.5% 47.8% 1.70% 39.4% 43.5% -4.10%
2000 50.0% 49.3% 0.70% 47.5% 48.1% -0.60%
2004 48.8% 49.8% -1.00% 50.2% 49.3% 0.90%
2008 53.4% 56.4% -3.00% 44.7% 41.9% 2.80%
2012 51.3% 53.4% -2.10% 47.3% 45.4% 1.90%
2016 42.1% 51.7% -9.60% 53.6% 43.6% 10.00%

Curious, isn’t it? This is why we need to #AuditTheVote before it’s too late. We don’t have anything to lose by fighting for the truth.

Whatever Happened to the Scandal of the Century?

Posted on by

It seems to have disappeared right after the election. I guess because it was only of titanic importance when it supposedly revealed everything rotten about one of the candidates. Now nobody cares. 

But for anyone still wondering what happened, below are two word clouds that summarize Gallup’s interviews with 30,000 voters between July and September. Voters were asked “What specifically do you recall reading, hearing or seeing about <Donald T—p> or <Hillary Clinton> in the last day or two?”

Words associated with the Orange Menace are on the left. Words associated with Clinton are on the right.

trump-word-cloud-getty

That one big blue word sure leaps off the page!

But notice some of the other memorable words that came up when people thought of Hillary Clinton: “lie”, “health”, “scandal”, “FBI”, “pneumonia”, “foundation”. Is it any wonder that the lying, corrupt, scandal-plagued, secretive, sickly candidate lost Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin by less than 1% of the vote? Move two or three of those states into Clinton’s column and January suddenly looks much brighter for America and the world.

While we’re on the subject, consider “Don’t Call Clinton a Weak Candidate: It Took Decades of Scheming to Beat Her” in The Guardian. It’s a brief but tragic summary of the obstacles Clinton faced and almost overcame two weeks ago.

It Isn’t Too Late To Stop Him

Posted on by

When Michigan finishes auditing its election, T—p is expected to have 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. She will have received a couple million more votes nationwide, maybe 2.5 million more, but that won’t matter. 

Therefore, when the Electoral College votes next month, we only need 37 Republican electors to demonstrate some bravery and good sense – or to follow orders from the Republican hierarchy, a very different thing – and vote for someone other than T—p. If that happens, he won’t get the required 270 electoral votes to become President.

Assuming Hillary Clinton doesn’t get 270 either (it’s highly unlikely that any Republican electors would vote for a Democrat), and the Kasich/Kaine national unity ticket I proposed fails to sweep the nation (despite the 100 people, many of them real, who have signed my petition so far), the election will be decided by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

According to the little-known 12th Amendment to the Constitution, each of the 50 states will get one vote. There will be three candidates in the running. Presumably, two of them will be T—p and Clinton. But the third will be whoever came in third in the Electoral College. Maybe it will be Mike Pence. Or Paul Ryan. Or Matthew McConaughey. Or you.

The voting would continue until one of the candidates received at least 26 votes. (Meanwhile, the Senate would be picking the Vice President.) T—p might win in the House anyway, depending on who that third candidate was, but the Republican leadership could easily find an excuse to dump T—p for a more traditional Republican, protecting us from the worst. President. Ever. 

Of course, I didn’t expect my petition to take flight and change history (although I kind of hoped it would), but anything any of us can do to “normalize” the idea that the Electoral College should intervene is worth doing. The more we spread the idea, the more acceptable the idea will become, especially because rejecting terrible candidates is part of the Electoral College’s job!

And the idea is spreading. Yesterday, a Democratic elector wrote an article for Daily Kos called “Yes, I am one of those 538 national electors and the Electoral College is in play”. He is trying to get Republican electors to vote for anyone but T—p. The Denver Post has covered the story (although the accompanying video throws cold water on the idea, because that’s what seasoned, cynical political reporters are expected to do).

Today, a professor of journalism and political science published an article at The Atlantic entitled “The Electoral College Was Meant to Stop Men Like Trump From Being President: The founders envisioned electors as people who could prevent an irresponsible demagogue from taking office”.

His conclusion:

Before this election, I supported abolishing the Electoral College. Now I think America needs electors who, in times of national emergency, can prevent demagogues from taking power.

Go ahead and call me an elitist; Donald Trump has changed the way I view American government. Before this year, I would have considered Hamilton’s demand for independent-minded electors who could prevent candidates with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from winning the presidency to be antiquated and retrograde. Now I think the framers were prescient and I was naïve. Eighteen months ago, I could never have imagined President Donald Trump. Now I’m grateful that, two hundred and twenty-seven years ago, they did.

So please spread the word. It isn’t too late.

An Open Letter to the Leading Democrat in the House

Posted on by

As foreign diplomats and business people begin funneling cash to the President-Elect by taking rooms and scheduling events at T—p’s new Washington hotel (see “kleptocracy”), someone shared the following letter with me. It’s addressed to Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

I am writing to you on the assumption that you will continue to be leader of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives, and am urging you and the Democratic Caucus to immediately start drafting Articles of Impeachment for our presumptive President, Vice President, and other executive positions subject to impeachment.

Like many Americans, I am deeply troubled by the results of the November election. Assuming the lobbying of the Electoral College comes to naught and we do end up with this amazingly unqualified individual as President, my feeling is that everyone should do whatever they can to minimize damage to the country during his tenure.

Impeachment of executive branch officials, both elected and appointed, is the domain of the House of Representatives. There is surely zero chance that Articles of Impeachment drafted by the Democratic Caucus would pass the Judiciary Committee. But I do believe a steady stream of draft impeachment documents presented to the committee would help keep the incompetence of the Executive Branch and its appointments in the public eye. Even if the majority party does not allow draft Articles of Impeachment to come under committee consideration, their existence and content can still be publicized.

When considering the President and Vice President, and the people who are being named for other positions subject to impeachment, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be no trouble to create a steadily growing list of impeachable offenses for several years to come.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Meanwhile, a few Republicans in the Electoral College can still interfere with the monster’s journey to the White House. 

Today’s Screwed Up America Roundup, With a Glimmer of Hope at the End

Posted on by

New York Magazine says they’re going to provide a weekly inventory of T—p’s “affronts to liberal democracy”. Their first batch includes nine items, the worst of which was his announcement that he’s appointing: an anti-semitic propagandist as his chief strategist; a Southerner so racist that Republicans (!) refused to make him a Federal judge as Attorney General; and a dangerous nut job who was fired from his last government job as his National Security Advisor.

But what did we expect? The heads of organized crime families value loyalty above all else, and these three individuals were among T—p’s most fervid supporters. On the other hand, the Tea Party Congressman he wants as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency wasn’t initially a T—p supporter. He does, however, want to cancel the Iran nuclear arms deal and bring back waterboarding.

Next, two articles from The Washington Post. Ronald Klain, who was Chief of Staff for Vice Presidents Gore and Biden, warns that T—p’s so-called “infrastructure” plan is a trap. It isn’t a plan to fix what’s known as our “crumbling” infrastructure or create lots of jobs. It’s a way to raid the Treasury on behalf of selected investors. There will be no requirement that any particular work will be done or any jobs will be created. Nevertheless, the recipients of the tax breaks will be guaranteed a profit.

Again, what would we expect from a shady real estate developer whose fortune heavily relied on a billion dollars in tax breaks from New York City?

To understand how T—p plans to profit from being President, read “Welcome to the T—p Kleptocracy”. The T—p family business will keep going but with inside information and influence peddling as profit enhancers:

The irony is that so many of Trump’s supporters believed his preposterous claim that he would be the one to banish corruption from Washington, that he’d “drain the swamp” and send that crooked establishment packing. He’ll do nothing of the sort, of course; his transition team is drowning in corporate lobbyists, and among his first priorities are cutting taxes for the wealthy and removing oversight from Wall Street… what’s different and probably unprecedented is the way Trump will increase his fortune by hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars while he’s president.

Finally, there’s an article at the Time magazine site called “The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump”. Actually, one of the reasons the Electoral College was created was to protect the institution of slavery in the South. But protecting us from demagogues and the obviously unfit was another big part of its appeal. Today, the Electoral College serves two purposes:

One of them is to give small states power as well as big states and the cities. The other is to provide a mechanism where intelligent, thoughtful and statesmanlike leaders could deliberate on the winner of the popular vote and, if necessary, choose another candidate who would not put Constitutional values and practices at risk.

The Electoral College was designed to avoid Presidents “with talents for low intrigue” and to interfere with “the desire in foreign powers [you know, like Russia!] to gain an improper ascendant in our councils”!

Can you therefore imagine Alexander Hamilton jumping up and down somewhere in the great beyond, desperately trying to get our attention? “See, see, this brightly-colored personage of low character and little understanding is precisely the type who must never become President of our fair nation. We gave you the Electoral College, fools! Now employ it!”

(And after that glimmer of hope: Will the con man break one of his biggest campaign promises and allow the Republicans to privatize Medicare and Social Security? I mean, Jesus H. Christ!)