This post is something of a guest post. I posted about John Foelster in 2014. He alerted me several weeks ago that he was close to completing his website with all his evidence. I wrote this last night but decided to wait until I'd slept before posting it. I'm still not ready to address much and I have an afternoon appointment on something totally different today. John's also posted this on Daily Kos.
My one bright bit of news this morning is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Imagine Trump's supporters if he had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
I've never met John Foelster, but we have exchanged emails. This 2014 post gives my thoughts about John and why I posted about his work then. I got some education in computer voting hacking while covering the Anchorage Municipal election fiasco in 2012. The posts on that election are listed in the 2014 post linked above.
I posted Foelster's stuff in 2014 and I'm posting his recent stuff for several reasons:
1. While I don't totally understand all that he's saying, I'm convinced that he's done his homework on the technical side. He's found everything that's to be found online about the machines we use in Alaska and how we handled them.
2. He doesn't have an agenda other than righting what he perceives as a wrong.
3. The work he's done should be seen by those who can review it technically and determine its value. And if there are others looking at this topic, they may find John's work useful. Or can point out his errors.
I have less confidence in Foelster's ability to fill in the gaps that are left by what is NOT available online. It's reasonable that he try to explain how this could have been done. But I wish he'd talked to people to find out if his suppositions about how this was carried out have merit.
My thoughts on all this, including a list of my posts about the 2012 Municipal election fiasco are on the 2014 post I devoted to Foelster's work then.
I've looked at his private website. It's massive. There is lots and lots of information. His statement is like a two second look through a hole in the fence around his work. I couldn't get through it all. Whether it is fact or fiction, it is, in its own way, a work of art. While John may not have tied all the loose ends, and may have tied some of them incorrectly, he is not a crazy conspiracy nut. He's done way too much detailed study and analysis to not be taken seriously. If his work is full of holes, exposure to the world will demonstrate that. If it is worthwhile, not putting it up would be wrong. I'm willing to put it up here since all this is related to Alaska elections.
Here's what John Foelster has to say.
[I've cut this out based on a request from the author - see comments below.]