Recount Won't Change the Election, Since Pennsylvania Has No Paper Trail

[McCamy Taylor]

Before we start celebrating, remember one thing---you can not "recount" a hacked electronic vote if there is no paper trail, and Pennsylvania has no paper trail.

The Stein/Green effort to "recount" votes will likely result in a switch of two states' electoral votes. But it won't be enough to unseat Trump. It will make Americans leery of e-voting---when they see two states change, they will wonder "What about the third?" It will help the Greens in their valiant effort to raise awareness of the dangers of e-voting without a paper trail. More states may do what California did and future elections will be more accurate----

But that will not do a thing for the 20,000,000 Americans who will lose their ACA insurance or the seniors who will lose Medicare or the schools that will be underfunded or the children who will be forced to work or the women who will have to seek do it yourself abortions.

So, yeah, by all means "recount" the vote---where it can be counted. But we need to challenge the vote in those states where it was obviously hacked. That means let some reputable computer scientists look at the code, check for malware, make sure there are no funny alterations in vote tallies--hint, once the urban vote came in, they would have known just how much they needed to adjust the rural vote.

[RandySF]

1. They can alway audit the machines.

But the margin looks too big to flip the results.

[pandr32]

2. E-voting machines should print a summary of the vote when done

And then it could be handed to someone official who collects them for the purpose of records and recounts as one is leaving.

[Ohioblue22]

3. Ohio ag turned off the audit feature in ohio . So no audit here either

[uponit7771]

5. omfg... and if a dem did this DPutin would put the person in jail

[TheFrenchRazor]

11. yep, can't be undermining confidence in the election stealing equipment. nt

[KittyWampus]

14. Then I would argue that Ohio's electoral votes be nullified due to malfeasance

[ananda]

15. Sounds good to me!

All machines and votes should be auditable.

[Ms. Toad]

17. Please be careful with the truth. There's enough fake news on the other side of the aisle.

Last edited Sat Nov 26, 2016, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Voting machines in Ohio are a county-by-county decision. Both for which machines are used and what features are active (unless prohibited by the state). In other words, the state puts a fence around all of the possible machines/options. Within that fence, it is a county-by-county decision.

There are 10 different voting machine systems in Ohio. There are two separate features discussed in the articles I found. An audit feature - which has nothing to do with a recount - and a new feature on some new machines that take images of ballots and store them (I'm not familiar with that feature - and I haven't found a formal description of it. It would likely have been a handfjul of counties, since the only discussion I can find of new voting machines in Ohio was written in September - and discussed a future move to replace aging voting machines.

As near as I can tell from your description and the reports I've found, the Ohio AG permitted counties to choose to turn off either the audit feature OR a new imaging feature. The description of the process for turning it off was a drop-down box. A description that specific would not be universal across venders - so, again, it would impact - at most - only the counties that used that particular machine.

Of the counties 48 vote by touch screen (two kinds); 40 vote using paper ballots (6 kinds of machines, including the larger cities of Cleveland, Akron, and Cincinnati). So (without counting up county-by-county vote totals) likely about half of Ohio votes are on paper. {ETA: This doesn't add to 10 systems, because the system includes at least a scanner and one that can be used by an unsighted person and not every county that used a particular scanner chose the same ADA machine, and some counties used more one type of scanner - so there are 10 systems, using some combination of 2 touch screen machines, 6 scanners, and one ballot marking device}

ETA#2: I've spent a fair amount of time searching now. I cannot find any reports of new voting machines (or newly added ballot protection technology. According to Verified Voting, only 5 counties changed systems. They went from touch screen to paper ballots. All of the reports of this trace back to Bob Fritakis or Greg Palast, and refer to an unidentified case in an unidentified court, about an unidentified county. (The hearing took place in Columbus, but that could have been Franklin County in a lower-level state court, or any county in the Supreme Court.) In short, the reports don't give any to track down precisely which machines were involved. (I can't find any reference to the newly added technology described by Fritakis/Palast anywhere - even outside of Ohio.) One person who referenced "state-of-the-art" machines in Ohio, but lives in California, so would be unlikely to have any direct knowledge.

[Kolesar]

24. thank you ... eom

[TheFrenchRazor]

25. this says that counties "may choose" to turn off audit feature. still f*cked up. nt

[pnwmom]

4. Some parts of PA might, but the all important Philadelphia County does not. n/t

[Barack_America]

12. ?? Philly machines print to a paper tape.

[milestogo]

20. Is there a trend that cities (more Dems) use paper

and rural areas (more Republicans) use electronic voting machines?

It seems bizarre to me that there should be different types of voting equipment within a state.

[demtenjeep]

6. it wont matter

people are throwing money into a black hole



People like me face losing everything because of disease and 50 K would make all the difference in the world but this effort is making millions and it won't change drumpth from being president


https://www.gofundme.com/pamelas-crohns-disease-relief

[Dream Girl]

21. Wow you don't miss a beat!

[creeksneakers2]

7. PA does test the machines

They vote on the machine a counted number of times and see if the results are correct. That doesn't cover all possibiiities though.

[TheFrenchRazor]

9. when, how often, and how many machines? nt

[creeksneakers2]

18. I reread it

They only do that test when they find a discrepancy.

http://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/Documents/Elections%20Division/Administration/directive%20concerning%20the%20use.pdf

[TheFrenchRazor]

22. and how would they find a discrepancy without some testing, recounting? it's a catch-22. nt

[TheFrenchRazor]

8. probably won't change the outcome, but if discrepancies come to light it could convince people

to get rid of electronic voting machines, or a least guarantee a paper ballot that is retained for recounts. the current system is a total joke, and this is the FOUNDATION of our entire government.

[spanone]

10. i think it's a good thing for a democracy....we'll see what it reveals, if anything.

[KittyWampus]

13. The audit the machines and highlight the lack of verity.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. It's highly unlikely the result will change in any of the 3 states n/t

[milestogo]

19. Raising the awareness of the dangers of e-voting without a paper trail

is a pretty important endeavor - and not just for the Green Party.

[TheFrenchRazor]

23. precisely. nt

[NRQ891]

26. I had heard concerns about Diebold voting machines at least a decade ago

if not earlier - but it's an issue that sounds like something that only sticklers, nerds and green eyeshade types care about to many people - until now