Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge Election Results
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:44:08 -0600, STOP DAPL wrote:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/




"Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs
to be looked at by an independent review."

Translation: We have no evidence, it's just a feeling.........

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

On 11/23/2016 11:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:44:08 -0600, STOP DAPL wrote:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/




"Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs
to be looked at by an independent review."

Translation: We have no evidence, it's just a feeling.........


That was my immediate reaction but, the statistical anomaly is puzzling.

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

On 11/23/16 1:09 PM, STOP DAPL wrote:
On 11/23/2016 11:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:44:08 -0600, STOP DAPL
wrote:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/





"Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any
evidence of hacking, the pattern needs
to be looked at by an independent review."

Translation: We have no evidence, it's just a feeling.........


That was my immediate reaction but, the statistical anomaly is puzzling.
Past things I have seen indicate that the computer machines have a
lower error rate than the other two (especially to the extent that
things like creases, etc., make it necessary to hand count the optical
machines). It could just as easily be that the computer is more accurate
and the problem is with the paper ballots and optical scanners.

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:44:08 -0600
STOP DAPL wrote:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/




Professor at center of report that Russia hacked the election walks
back his claim

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11...ack-his-claim/

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge Election Results
 

Per Kurt V. Ullman:
Past things I have seen indicate that the computer machines have a
lower error rate than the other two (especially to the extent that
things like creases, etc., make it necessary to hand count the optical
machines). It could just as easily be that the computer is more accurate
and the problem is with the paper ballots and optical scanners.

I did not notice any reference to whether-or-not the suspect districts
had paper backup.

Seems like I have seen reference to computerized voting systems that are
100% digital - with no paper backup; but that was some years ago.

As a computer application developer in my previous life, I would find
lack of a paper trail disturbing - to say the least.

Does anybody know?

--
Pete Cresswell

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

On 11/23/16 3:48 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Kurt V. Ullman:
Past things I have seen indicate that the computer machines have a
lower error rate than the other two (especially to the extent that
things like creases, etc., make it necessary to hand count the optical
machines). It could just as easily be that the computer is more accurate
and the problem is with the paper ballots and optical scanners.

I did not notice any reference to whether-or-not the suspect districts
had paper backup.
They didn't. They were comparing districts who had machine voting to
those with the other two (hand counting and optical readers) and saying
that the voting machine districts were wrong because of the difference.
I was noting that the differences could have just as easily been because
the machines are more better.

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

On 11/23/16 9:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
"Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs
to be looked at by an independent review."

Translation: We have no evidence, it's just a feeling.........

wasn't/isn't that the Trump playbook...I mean I'm still wait for proof
those large crowds of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge ElectionResults
 

On 11/23/2016 02:14 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/23/16 3:48 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Kurt V. Ullman:
Past things I have seen indicate that the computer machines have a
lower error rate than the other two (especially to the extent that
things like creases, etc., make it necessary to hand count the optical
machines). It could just as easily be that the computer is more accurate
and the problem is with the paper ballots and optical scanners.

I did not notice any reference to whether-or-not the suspect districts
had paper backup.
They didn't. They were comparing districts who had machine voting to
those with the other two (hand counting and optical readers) and saying
that the voting machine districts were wrong because of the difference.
I was noting that the differences could have just as easily been because
the machines are more better.



http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ction-results/

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge Election Results
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:43:48 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 11/23/16 1:09 PM, STOP DAPL wrote:
On 11/23/2016 11:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:44:08 -0600, STOP DAPL
wrote:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/





"Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any
evidence of hacking, the pattern needs
to be looked at by an independent review."

Translation: We have no evidence, it's just a feeling.........


That was my immediate reaction but, the statistical anomaly is puzzling.
Past things I have seen indicate that the computer machines have a
lower error rate than the other two (especially to the extent that
things like creases, etc., make it necessary to hand count the optical
machines). It could just as easily be that the computer is more accurate
and the problem is with the paper ballots and optical scanners.
It is also "possible" that the computer had a "programming anomoly"
- either a bug or a hack - that caused it to mis-report.
Not saying it did - or that there were any voting problems in the last
election - but any time a computer is exposed to the "wild" (i.e
connected to a public network) the possibilty of hacking cannot be
totally discounted.

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge Election Results
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:42:11 -0500, wrote:

but any time a computer is exposed to the "wild" (i.e
connected to a public network) the possibilty of hacking cannot be
totally discounted.

I doubt these computers are internet connected. Usually the little
network they run on is just wire in the polling place and air gapped
from anything else.
I still think anything without a paper trail will be suspect, valid or
not.

Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign To Challenge Election Results
 

Per Kurt V. Ullman:
the machines are more better.

Do you come from Hawaii?

Bettah, Mo-Bettah, Mo-Bettah-Dakine....
nominative, comparative, superlative... -)
--
Pete Cresswell