Green Party's Jill Stein to Seek Hand 'Recounts', Forensic Tabulator Audits in WI, MI, PA

The Green Party's 2016 Presidential candidate Jill Stein is announcing her intention to seek a "recount of votes in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania." The campaign's press release, posted in full below, cites "a multi-partisan effort to check the accuracy of the machine-counted vote tallies in these states in order to ensure the integrity of our elections."

The announcement follows on word that leaked out yesterday at New York magazine that top electronic voting experts and election integrity advocates have been encouraging the Hillary Clinton campaign to file for similar hand-counts and forensic analyses of electronic voting and tabulation systems in the same states. The BRAD BLOG has independently confirmed that those efforts have been under way and are still being considered at the top level of the Clinton campaign.

We discussed just some of those efforts, and a number of reasons for them, on yesterday's BradCast program. University of Michigan computer science professor Alex Halderman, who has cracked many electronic voting systems in recent years, offers additional reasons to check the results and the systems in WI, MI and PA now right here.

Dr. Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party Presidential candidate, on her announcement earlier today that her campaign plans to file for hand-counted paper ballot "recounts" and forensic audits of the Presidential election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. [Audio link to show and full interview posted below.]

"We have to move really fast in order to basically verify the vote and be confident our votes were actually counted," she tells me, citing the many concerns brought to her by computer scientists and voting systems and election integrity experts, all questioning whether paper ballots were counted accurately by error-prone and easily-hacked computer tabulators in WI and MI, and whether touch-screen systems were manipulated in some fashion in PA.

Across those three states alone, as we have been reporting, just 50,000 votes flipped from Trump to Clinton --- out of more than 13 million ballots cast in those states, where a number of anomalous results have been found --- could change who becomes the next President of the United States.

There is plenty of reason to question whether the results as reported are accurate. And not only because of the surprising results. As I note again on today's show, University of Michigan computer science and voting systems expert J. Alex Halderman, one of those urging the candidates to call for a hand-count, has cracked many electronic voting systems in recent years. He offered still more reasons to examine both the reported results and the systems used in WI, MI and PA earlier today.

Stein, explaining that some $2 million must be raised to meet the deadline to file in WI by Friday (and another $4 million or so for the other two states next week), tells me that it's an "outrage we have to go to extraordinary lengths to verify the vote," adding she is doing so, due to her "interests as a citizen, as a person in America, that the vote be valid." (The campaign has set up a fund raising page for the effort right here.)

"Why would anyone be against counting the votes?," she asks. "Itâ€™s long been demonstrated that our system of voting, relying on these machines, has virtually no security. Theyâ€™re hack friendly [and] tamper friendly."

"People have felt such anguish during this election," Stein notes. "This is a joint effort, and there are many election advocates who are involved. A lot of the grassroots election integrity experts. If ever there was a time to stand up and demand an accountable and secure vote, this is the time to do it. If we don't do it now, when exactly, what would be the cause to do it?" She also details the attempt by the scientists and advocates to encourage the Clinton campaign to take up the effort as well. (I can confirm that effort happened and that the campaign was still considering doing so as of earlier today.) She says she welcomes other campaigns, such as the Libertarian Party and independent candidates with standing, to join the effort as well.

"It feels really good to be standing up right now," she tells me. "Itâ€™s time for us to take control of our democracy to start with. To give ourselves a gift on this Thanksgiving." We discuss all of that and the many concerns about the reported results, take a few calls afterward, and actually find a bit more to be thankful for on today's program Download MP3

Our voting system is far worse than a banana republic of Honduras. Here is how Hondurans vote:

Voting Procedures in Honduras, a Banana Republic!
(a re-write of excellent post by Gideon300)

I had the opportunity to go watch my wife, a citizen of Honduras, vote in last years presidential election in Tegucigalpa. It was a real eye-opener, and I can only wish the US had such a strict voting process.

Everyone in Honduras is required to vote only in the precinct as indicated on their government issued (free) photo ID card. Every citizen over 18 is required to have an national ID, and everyone with an ID can vote. No one else, and no one is registered as a member of a certain party, merely a citizen. My wifes precinct is Barrio El Bosque, so she was required to go to the Escuela de 14 de Julio (local elementary school) if she wanted to vote.

When we arrived at the voting place there were hundreds of people milling around the street and a long line was waiting to enter. The entire scene was closely watched over by Army and Policía Nacionál to make sure order was kept. For the most part everything was quite orderly, and people were polite to each other even with the shoulder-to-shoulder crowd. After showing ID, passing the guard and entering the school we went to the main table in the courtyard where they ran her ID through a computer and she was given a little slip of paper that indicated her name, her precinct, her mesa (voting area) and linea number (her number on the voter registration list). Every citizen is automatically registered to vote, and their name, Id photo and precinct number is on a list posted in that precinct.

The mesas’ in this case are rooms in the school, numbered in order to handle the hundreds of people waiting to vote. Her mesa was number 8586, so after finding the room, there was a list of all registered voters beside the door. She checked her line number with photo, 235, to make sure she is at the right door, the man watching the door checked her ID against the list, and let her in. She went to the table inside the room for a ballot, was checked again for ID and compared it to the info and photo in the registry, was given two ballots, one for president and one for congress, and this time they held her ID while she voted. I was allowed in as a foreign observer, but was not on school tables for privacy, so after voting she deposited her ballots in the appropriate boxes, was given her ID back and we left.

I wanted to take photos but no cameras were allowed anywhere but in the street. No alcohol is sold anywhere in Honduras from Saturday through Monday, the day before and the day after election.

They take voter ID, and potential vote fraud, VERY seriously. All ballots are paper, and all have the candidate’s info and photo. There are eight official parties in Honduras, and the one with the most votes wins. The police and the army watch the voting very closely. One woman was caught with an extra ballot, and was immediately arrested. The Honduras news media, which is quite politically unbiased, indicated that both local and official foreign observers found only three cases of vote fraud in the entire country.

It was certainly an eye-opener for me! If this is the difference between a the US and a Banana Republic, then I will take a banana republic election anytime.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.