Computer Scientists Contact Clinton Campaign, Suggest Election Results Be Challenged
- 7 years ago
Computer scientists have identified a voting anomaly that they believe warrants an election results challenge.
Computer scientists say they have identified a potential voting anomaly that warrants an election results challenge, reports CNN.
They have reportedly been in touch with the Clinton campaign, urging it to pursue the matter.
According to New York Magazine, the group, which includes voting rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society, detected an unusual voting pattern in Wisconsin.
Its findings show that Clinton’s count is 7% lower in counties that employed electronic ballots rather than those filled in by hand and scanned.
They believe tallies in Michigan and Pennsylvania may have been impacted as well. Both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have declared Trump the victor of their respective states and, combined, hold 30 electoral votes.
Michigan, which has yet to be officially called due to the tightness of the race there, has 16 electoral votes to cast.
Time is growing short for the Clinton campaign to pose a challenge. Wisconsin’s deadline for such action is Friday. Pennsylvania’s window of dispute closes on Monday and Michigan’s shutters next Wednesday.
Vox’s Andrew Prokop, a skeptic of the voting discrepancy suggestion, notes, “…it’s quite possible that electronic-voting machines were more often used in counties that were already more likely to support Trump.”
He also comments, “Maybe this group of ‘prominent computer scientists and election lawyers’ is sitting on more persuasive evidence than this. If so, they should post it publicly and let their claims be analyzed, rather than letting vague rumors swirl.”
Computer scientists say they have identified a potential voting anomaly that warrants an election results challenge, reports CNN.
They have reportedly been in touch with the Clinton campaign, urging it to pursue the matter.
According to New York Magazine, the group, which includes voting rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society, detected an unusual voting pattern in Wisconsin.
Its findings show that Clinton’s count is 7% lower in counties that employed electronic ballots rather than those filled in by hand and scanned.
They believe tallies in Michigan and Pennsylvania may have been impacted as well. Both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have declared Trump the victor of their respective states and, combined, hold 30 electoral votes.
Michigan, which has yet to be officially called due to the tightness of the race there, has 16 electoral votes to cast.
Time is growing short for the Clinton campaign to pose a challenge. Wisconsin’s deadline for such action is Friday. Pennsylvania’s window of dispute closes on Monday and Michigan’s shutters next Wednesday.
Vox’s Andrew Prokop, a skeptic of the voting discrepancy suggestion, notes, “…it’s quite possible that electronic-voting machines were more often used in counties that were already more likely to support Trump.”
He also comments, “Maybe this group of ‘prominent computer scientists and election lawyers’ is sitting on more persuasive evidence than this. If so, they should post it publicly and let their claims be analyzed, rather than letting vague rumors swirl.”