Statistician calls for audit to address election hacking fears

Statistician calls for audit to address election hacking fears
Philip Stark and Ron Rivest favor a risk-limiting election audit. Credit: Cyrus Farivar

With the Electoral College set on Dec. 19 to cement the results of Donald Trump's presidential win, UC Berkeley statistician Philip Stark is calling for an audit to double-check that hackers did not manipulate the results.

In an op-ed in USA Today, Stark and MIT cryptographer Ron Rivest, both advisors on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, argue that there are good reasons to conduct a "risk-limiting" audit of the .

Among them is the conclusion of the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency that Russian hackers attacked the Democratic National Committee and U.S. voter registration databases.

For example, they say, the could have been tipped by manipulating the vote count in a small number of jurisdictions in battleground states, such as areas with limited resources to defend against cyberattacks.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has called on Congress to investigate Russian cyberattacks on the election. Meanwhile, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that 18 percent of voters believe Trump was not the legitimate winner of the election. Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has grown to 1.7 million.

A petition calling for to double-check the results via a risk-limiting audit is circulating online. More than 100,000 people have signed it so far.

Explore further

US official: Hackers targeted election systems of 20 states

Citation: Statistician calls for audit to address election hacking fears (2016, November 23) retrieved 22 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 25, 2016
Look up Diebold and "rob Georgia".

The president of Diebold publicly said he would do anything in his power to get George Dubya Bush elected, and his voting machines did exactly that.

Dec 02, 2016
Hi gkam. :)

On Nov 12 (elsewhere), I posted:
Has anyone considered the possibility that, as Trump claimed, the election WAS rigged? Only the rigging was against Clinton, not Trump? Donald said that if he lost it would be because it was rigged; and that he would challenge via the courts. Would Donald have a fit if Clinton used that same excuse to challenge his election, or would he agree that the election MAY have been rigged after all (recall that the Russian hacking activity was very blatant recently, and that possibility uppermost in the minds of those responsible for the ELECTRONIC VOTING machines/systems involved)? Anyhow, 'just sayin', as they say. Enjoy the ride, folks! Maybe that old Chinese Curse has come to roost upon America of today; and I quote:
May you live in "interesting" times!
Wonder if Republican 'dirty tricks' section planning to assassinate Trump/Pence; claim democrats/terrorists 'did it'; finagle compliant stooges into office? Oops.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more