[Newfie]

Cog,
The PA machines are different, older yet.

I could not find a good description so I'll wing it from memory of using them and some online info.

The face of the machine is a matrix of switches. I believe that the layout is static. It was designed to meet PA needs. There must be some customization because not all switches are used in every election.

The switches are in pairs, you can select one, the other, or neither. In some instances, where you are selecting more than one for an office, you can only select X number in a row.

The Human interface is a printed sheet that fits over the matrix, the switch lights shine through, you activate a switch by pressing on the printed sheet with the names and instructions.

When you are all done with selections, made any changes you wish, you pull a lever and the switch state (your vote) is dumped into a register. +1 for an affirmative vote. That is sent to some kind of accumulator that galleys the vote.m at the end of the day the votes are printed out.

There is a card that has the same tally, but it is read only.

That's why there really is no recount for these old machines. Hacking requires mechanical manipulation on a machine by machine basis.

Older is better. A sweet note since Yesterday was my 66th birthday!

[Cog]

Thanks Newfie. Never used a machine like that and its technology(old) is interesting. There are ways to cheat on an election but the machines are not the answer. Absentee ballots, missing ballots, dead people voting, ballots in some poll worker's trunk that just happen to show up, that is how you swing a close election. Pennsylvania is not even close.

[Newfie]

I've done some consulting work on transit control centers and the hacking issue comes up. It's always a problem. On the one hand you have the operational folks who want NO connection to the Internet. And that's possible where the agency has its own dedicated fiber.

On the other hand the maintenance folks want to be able to have the various software vendors able to access the system remotely for support. That support is a big cost driver. Then there is the issue of updating software, which is a vulnerability no matter how it's done.

The big difference is that the control systems are interconnected so that once a virus enters the system it can spread. That is much harder on non interconnected systems such as voting machines.

This is an unintended consequence of the ubiquitous Internet. It need not be an issue. There are other ways of controlling machines that do not require an Ethernet type communications path. But the IT guys are ruling the world. They damn well may bring it down.

[Sixstrings]

Article in The Week, which is generally establishment liberal. Goodness, they REALLY don't like Jill Stein and the Green Party:

The delusional melodrama of Jill Stein

Stein just wants to keep imposing herself on the national stage, eating up time and resources from state governments in order to raise money from suckers unhappy with Trump's victory and feed her own delusions of relevance. Shame on her, and shame on those egging her on.
http://theweek.com/articles/664407/delusional-melodrama-jill-stein

‘The View’ Grills Jill Stein on Recount: ‘What Are You Trying to Prove?’

“We’re not here to help one candidate and hurt another,” Stein added. “We’re really here to help voters feel like we’ve got a system that’s working for us.” But this only prompted Behar to ask, “What are you really trying to prove then?”

Stein did not exactly give Behar the answer she wanted to hear, telling her that the thing about voting is “you don’t know until you look.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/30/the-view-grills-jill-stein-on-recount-what-are-you-trying-to-prove.html

Notice how that article has a negative slant to it, yet if you watch the interview on The View -- it was a good interview for Stein, and the audience loudly clapped in agreement with every answer she gave:

Dr. Jill Stein Talks Election Recount, It's Purpose & More | The View
https://youtu.be/VZqDHszHjQg

[Plantagenet]

In an NPR interview Jill Stein wouldn't even call it a recount. She said she was after an "audit" of the election.

Stein also said she didn't understand why a lot of ballots only had votes for down ballot candidates, with no vote for either Trump or Hillary. Stein is an utter moron not to understand that some voters couldn't support Trump or Hillary.

I think Cog is right----Stein is trying to deflect attention from from the fact that Hillary would've won if the Green Party hadn't siphoned off a lot of D voters in Wisconsin and other key states. Liberals excoriated Ralph Nader for years after he cost Al Gore the presidency. I bet Stein is trying to avoid the same fate.

The reason why Hillary wants a recount is clearer---she's just throwing a fit and being a crybaby.


Waaa! I lost! No I didn't lose! Count it over! Make me win! Waaaa! Waaaa!

[Sixstrings]

Well.. I'd certainly never be in favor of a Green Party candidate for president.

But, it's actually a good thing if there are different views in our politics. Some Greens and Libertarians could keep the other two parties honest / balance them when needed.

What I think the 3rd parties SHOULD do, is *focus on a US senate seat*. Greens are way too far left for the presidency, but it would be okay to have one or two in the Senate.

Anyhow, whether anyone on this forum agrees with the Green Party about this recount issue, or doesn't agree, the reality is that the woman is getting huge applause from studio audiences.

The media is all against the Green Party, yet the donations keep coming in and she keeps getting applause..

Was everyone in that studio audience a "moron," for clapping?

She's up to $6.7 million in her fundraising now (in less than a week), with a new goal of $9 million.

[vtsnowedin]

Well.. I'd certainly never be in favor of a Green Party candidate for president.

But, it's actually a good thing if there are different views in our politics. Some Greens and Libertarians could keep the other two parties honest / balance them when needed.

What I think the 3rd parties SHOULD do, is *focus on a US senate seat*. Greens are way too far left for the presidency, but it would be okay to have one or two in the Senate.

Anyhow, whether anyone on this forum agrees with the Green Party about this recount issue, or doesn't agree, the reality is that the woman is getting huge applause from studio audiences.

The media is all against the Green Party, yet the donations keep coming in and she keeps getting applause..

Can any of you explain that disconnect? Was everyone in that studio audience a "moron," for clapping?

She's up to $6.7 million in her fundraising now (in less than a week), with a new goal of $9 million.

If a third party was to grow they would have to start by winning a few house seats. Only about 200,000 votes needed vs half of a state. In the small states with only one congressional district the incumbents are well entrenched and voters would not consider anyone that had not been their congressman or governor. Bernie made this calculation years ago and moved to Vermont to have a better shot then staying in NY. It almost paid off big time for him and settling for being just a Senator with seniority isn't such a bad gig.

[Sixstrings]

Daily Mail article about Jill Stein:

She's a drum-playing radical doctor who calls WiFi 'low-level radiation' and says she'd put Edward Snowden in her cabinet: Meet Jill Stein - the failed Green Party presidential candidate now holding Trump's election hostage

Her first overtly political act was protesting Massachusetts' 'Filthy Five' power stations, calling for them to be closed down. As a doctor, she said she was worried about the effect of pollution on children's health.

Her protests brought about a rare success for Stein. The last of the plants was shuttered in 2014.

She had long been a Democrat but says she moved leftward after the party killed campaign finance reform in Massachusetts, and 'foolishly' she accepted the Green-Rainbow Party's offer to run under its flag for state governor in 2002. She finished third of five candidates.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986184/Meet-Jill-Stein-failed-Green-Party-candidate-political-forefront-election-recount.html

Just to be clear -- I'd NEVER even consider voting for Green Party, unless they moderated at some point in the future. Kind of like how Bill Weld represented a more centrist version of Libertarianism.

But, I'm just saying something objective here -- I think maybe the Green Party has struck a chord, with this recount thing. You can watch The View show I linked, you'll see the whole audience clapping to everything she says.

[Sixstrings]

If a third party was to grow they would have to start by winning a few house seats. Only about 200,000 votes needed vs half of a state.

Good point, that would be a good start. I really don't know why the 3rd parties waste money on presidential elections.. they should focus all efforts on ONE house seat like you said, to start.

I said senate seat though, only because even ONE us senator has a lot of power.

And if third parties focused on the senate, then there wouldn't be the issue of throwing the presidential election to the other side in the left / right divide.

Bernie made this calculation years ago and moved to Vermont to have a better shot then staying in NY. It almost paid off big time for him and settling for being just a Senator with seniority isn't such a bad gig.

Yep, Bernie did alright for himself. He didn't win but he's got a place in history now, and he got his issues out there. He's got a leadership role in the senate now, too.

[vtsnowedin]

Yep, Bernie did alright for himself. He didn't win but he's got a place in history now, and he got his issues out there. He's got a leadership role in the senate now, too.

Yes but on the minority side. If the DNC hadn't screwed him he would be the President elect. At his age it must be very depressing to have come so close and then be cheated out of his dream.

[Sixstrings]

Short USA Today video, with Professor Halderman:

Why the Jill Stein campaign wants a Michigan recount

A computer science professor from the University of Michigan explains how a Michigan recount filed by Jill Stein's campaign could reveal tampering with voting machines.
https://youtu.be/hTeHbl_T5Ns

Is it not a good thing, that the Greens are just raising this issue in general? Of course it's almost a sure thing that the recount will show the same thing that the machines did, but some people just have some doubts, and it's just a public interest issue.

It's like old Ralph Nader, back when cars didn't have seatbelts.

EDIT: just to add, I was watching "Democracy Now!", and they interviewed Bernie Sanders and actually my opinion is the same as Bernie's.

Bernie says the recount "has touched a nerve:"

I think most people expect that not much will happen. But, we will see. ... I'll tell you why [the recount] is touching a nerve. It's not because I believe it's going to reverse the results. People, especially with all this barrage of attacks on websites and so forth, are really wondering whether when they vote -- IS their vote legitimate? And there's all kinds of things, like have the Russians interfered in this thing?
https://youtu.be/7vnzP9o0L5o?t=910

[peripato]

I want to know why recounts aren't also being demanded in states that HRC narrowly one? And what happened to respecting the will of the electorate that HRC demanded of Trump, when she thought she would win? Seems like another giant case of Libtard butt-hurt to me. Democracy only counts when the Left are winning.

And what would be the consequence of the Trump election being overturned? I hear that there are more than 300 million guns of various types in the U.S. One for every man, woman and child. Should be more than enough to finish the job. Then the rest of the world can get some well-deserved rest.

[Sixstrings]

@peripato
I don't think there's any chance a recount would be different enough from the first count, to overturn the result. The news says Pennsylvania is "next to impossible" to get a recount granted, and it was a 70k margin anyway.

Recount Bids in 3 States Seem the Longest of Long Shots

Why are the recounts such a long shot?

While Mr. Trump’s lead in each of the three states is narrow — he is ahead by 22,177 votes in Wisconsin, 70,638 in Pennsylvania and 10,704 in Michigan — the margins seem too large for Mrs. Clinton to overcome. A campaign lawyer for Mrs. Clinton, Marc Elias, noted that those gaps would exceed “the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/elections/recount-bids-in-3-states-seem-the-longest-of-long-shots.html

[peripato]

@peripato
I don't think there's any chance a recount would be different enough from the first count, to overturn the result. The news says Pennsylvania is "next to impossible" to get a recount granted, and it was a 70k margin anyway.

Recount Bids in 3 States Seem the Longest of Long Shots

Why are the recounts such a long shot?

While Mr. Trump’s lead in each of the three states is narrow — he is ahead by 22,177 votes in Wisconsin, 70,638 in Pennsylvania and 10,704 in Michigan — the margins seem too large for Mrs. Clinton to overcome. A campaign lawyer for Mrs. Clinton, Marc Elias, noted that those gaps would exceed “the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/elections/recount-bids-in-3-states-seem-the-longest-of-long-shots.html

All this malarky further delegitimises the political process in the minds of ordinary Americans, setting the scene for abrupt change. The U.S. and indeed the western world today generally reminds me a lot of the period just before perestroika. And we all know what happened a few short years after that.

[Cog]

If you want to see how things are going so far in Wisconsin below is a link that would take you to a spreadsheet link. You will need Excel or Open office to read it. One county has finished their recount and it has resulted in Trump losing two votes, Clinton losing one vote, and Jill Stein picking up three votes.

http://elections.wi.gov/publications/st ... preadsheet

[Newfie]

Well I hope the rest of the counties have better results than that.

That's a pretty high human error rate. Sloppy work. Kind of makes you think someone didn't think third party votes weren't worth counting. Someone should be very embarrassed.

Of course humans are doing the recount.

[Cog]

Here is a possible source of error if they did a hand recount in that particular county. If you don't darken in the ovals sufficiently, the machine will not cast a vote for anyone(for that particular office). The machine does notify the operator that you didn't mark something on the ballot, but if the voter doesn't care to go back and check it and accepts the ballot as is, you get undercounted votes that you can see visually when you do a manual recount.

Republican lawyers have filed suit to stop any recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan. There will not be enough time to do them prior to the Dec 13th deadline, when the electors meet. Wisconsin will have to work very hard to meet their self-imposed deadline of the 12th.

[Plantagenet]

The AG of Michigan just filed suit to stop the recount, on the grounds that Jill Stein doesn't have a chance of winning so the recount is completely spurious.

The AG says the money put up by Stein isn't enough to actually cover the full cost of the recount, so if the recount goes forward the taxpayers are being forced to help pay for Stein's personal little hissy fit.

Makes sense to me---thats what I posted the day this nuttiness was announced. Jill Stein has no grounds to request a recount because she doesn't have a chance in heck of winning.

cheers!

[Plantagenet]

One county has finished their recount and it has resulted in Trump losing two votes, Clinton losing one vote, and Jill Stein picking up three votes.

http://elections.wi.gov/publications/st ... preadsheet

So Jill Stein has paid three million dollars for three votes?

Wow.......who were the D loons who give her money for this farce?

[Newfie]

That was just one county, two precincts.

The vast majority of Wisconsin has to be counted yet.