A shorter version of the following article was published in the Edmonton Journal on Saturday November 26, 2016. Several other media outlets also picked up the article.
----------
At the heart of the principle of democracy
is the election process. If the integrity of that process is in question, then every
citizen who values freedom must be concerned.
On Wednesday [November 23, 2016], New York Magazine came out with a report that “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a
group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a
recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump.” The report stated that,
“The group… believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.” In
other words, precisely what Donald Trump repeatedly stated during the run-up to
November 8: “This election is rigged.”
As
a Canadian, I have no say in who the United States chooses to lead their
country. But as someone who looks to the United States as the flag-bearer for
democracy around the world, this report raises alarm bells. Nothing has been
proven, but I believe the allegations must be taken seriously.
The
issue at hand is the credibility of electronic voting. According to New York Magazine, there is data to show
that, “in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that
relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical
scanners and paper ballots.” The three states in question represent the margin
between having President-elect Trump or President-elect Clinton.
There
are two parts to this investigation, both of which hinge on understanding the
principles of mathematics and computer science. First, is there data to suggest
that something is amiss? Nothing has yet been revealed by the scientists, other
than through the news media. Without seeing the data, it is impossible to pass
judgement. However, the source is J. Alex Halderman, a Professor of Computer
Science and the director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society. Dr.
Halderman has an impressive track record and established credibility.
Here is a
simple way of thinking about the claim being made (pardon my mathematical imprecision).
Pretend you have two coins and you flip each of them 100 times. Assuming that
the coins have no imperfections, you would expect each coin to get around 50
heads and 50 tails. The first coin yields the expected result, 50-50. But
flipping the second coin results in 55 heads and 45 tails. This result is
possible, but mathematically the chances are small (roughly 1 in 20). What if
now you flip the second coin 1000 times and get 550 heads? This is still the
same percentage of heads, but now the chances of this occurring drop to around
1 in 6000. With virtual certainty something is amiss.
Loosely
speaking, the above analogy describes what is being alleged. Data from one set
of counties, those that did not use the voting machines, matches expectations
(possibly even matching exit polling results). Data from the set of counties
using voting machines does not. We have not yet seen the data analysis from the
scientists to support their claims, but if the New York Magazine report is accurate, then there is an anomaly that
must be investigated. It is not something that one can write off as an everyday
possibility. It is like asking the question “What are my chances of winning a
big lottery prize today?” Possible, but unlikely to say the least.
The second part
of the investigation is proof. If something untoward has happened, can it be
proven? Sadly, this may be difficult to do. The electronic voting machines are
run by computer software. They could have been programmed to ignore some votes,
something small enough that it might escape attention. That should be easy to
prove: just examine the machine’s software. That won’t necessarily reveal
anything, as clever hackers often leave no trace of what they have done. The
program code would be simple: “Wait until November 8, 2016. On that date ignore
every 10th vote for the Democrats. At 6AM on November 9, 2016 erase
this code.” Malicious programs do precisely this to cover their tracks.
If the software
shows no sign of tampering, can you prove that somehow malicious software was
put on the machines? Maybe. It depends on many factors, including the machine,
the hardware/software safeguards built into it, whether it was connected to a
network, and who might have had access to it. At one extreme, if all the
electronic voting machines were connected to the Internet, a hacker might be
able to break into the machines and download a “special” version of the
software. At the other extreme, none of the machines are connected to the
network, and someone had to go to each machine individually and put new
software on it. Showing that someone could access the machine without
permission would be cause for concern, but still does not prove that the vote
counts are wrong.
There is
another way that you can prove that the machines were flawed. It may be that
some counties that used electronic voting machines have an independent record
of the voting. For example, what if it was discovered that these counties
averaged 1,000 people casting votes (as recorded at the polling station) but
the machine only registered 900 actual votes? If there is independent
consistent evidence such as this, it will be compelling proof that the results are
flawed. Of course, even this would not tell us who was responsible or who was
the legitimate winner of the election.
Where does this leave us? The evidence for
voting irregularities must be made public and assessed. If there is cause for
concern, then an investigation must be launched. There may be no physical
evidence to support the contention that the voting machines were compromised.
What do you do, however, if you can prove that the voting pattern recorded by these
machines was so unusual that the result had only a one-in-one-thousand chance
of occurring? Does that constitute reasonable doubt in the legal sense? Does
that meet the bar for casting doubt on the result of the U.S. election?
The U.S. election was a bitter contest,
perhaps the most partisan election in that nation’s history. Now a credible
source may have data to suggest there are widespread voting anomalies. Every
American citizen – Republicans and Democrats – must be very concerned and
insist on a thorough bipartisan investigation. Going forward, the United States
must put in place a process that allows all methods of vote counting to be
audited. As a Canadian, it is important to me that the American election result
is above reproach. Anything less than that is an affront to democracy. Canada
and the world are watching.
