Election hackers DID alter voter rolls

[Grapemask]

This is why you use paper ballots.

As a computer scientist, this is one of those statements that kind of bugs me.

A little while back, I had to listen to a 2 hour talk about how electronic voting absolutely should not be used because it's not secure. He rattled off video after video of various techniques that have been found to hack or tamper with any number of devices in the electoral process. The moral of the story was that we should continue using paper ballots, and specifically keep a system that has a physical paper trail.

But like any argument related to politics, it builds a conclusion based on evidence of one thing without looking at the other side.

Paper ballots are very easy to tamper with, and despite every state using some form of electronic voting, the most significant amount of fraud happens at the paper level, not the electronic. The modern equivalent of "stuffing the ballot box," poll workers deliberately tallying incorrectly, losing ballots so they can't be counted, these all happen and so much more. Paper voting isn't secure in the tiniest bit, yet we insist that electronic voting must be 100% secure or it should not be used. Just that good old classic "fear of the new and unknown."

[Shalcker]

Whitehouse concedes russia...........

Suddenly White House is source of truth just because they agree with (or merely do not dispute) your opinion?

...show me the evidence you talked about.

[primalmatter]

I was told over and over again during the election by democrats that the vote couldn't be hacked and I would need to man up and accept the outcome of the election.

Why did that line of conversation drop the second they lost?

[NYC17]

I was told over and over again during the election by democrats that the vote couldn't be hacked and I would need to man up and accept the outcome of the election.

Why did that line of conversation drop the second they lost?

Did they tell you that? Or did they say that the system wasn't rigged against Trump?

I know nuance can be difficult but not to worry! It doesn't apply here since they are very different statements.

[Grapemask]

I was told over and over again during the election by democrats that the vote couldn't be hacked and I would need to man up and accept the outcome of the election.

Why did that line of conversation drop the second they lost?

Because that's not what they're saying. What was said before the election is that it is virtually impossible, and unheard of, for an election to be tampered with on such a scale that it changes the results. They were directly challenging Trump's growing assertions that the election would be hacked and rigged so that he would not win.

None of this is about how hackers changed the election. It's about pointing out foreign interference.

[primalmatter]

Did they tell you that? Or did they say that the system wasn't rigged against Trump?

I know nuance can be difficult but not to worry! It doesn't apply here since they are very different statements.

I believe they told me it couldn't be altered... though my memory does not recall if it was a news site that claimed that or if they where reporting on what was said during the campaign.

My break is almost done so I can't really check now so until later I yield the point for now.

[NYC17]

I believe they told me it couldn't be altered... though my memory does not recall if it was a news site that claimed that or if they where reporting on what was said during the campaign.

My break is almost done so I can't really check now so until later I yield the point for now.

So, you don't even remember what you were "told", yet you found it crucial enough to bring up for discussion because...

Yea.

[JohnBrown1917]

Paper ballots are very easy to tamper with, and despite every state using some form of electronic voting, the most significant amount of fraud happens at the paper level, not the electronic. The modern equivalent of "stuffing the ballot box," poll workers deliberately tallying incorrectly, losing ballots so they can't be counted, these all happen and so much more. Paper voting isn't secure in the tiniest bit, yet we insist that electronic voting must be 100% secure or it should not be used. Just that good old classic "fear of the new and unknown."

And it can happen on a far bigger scale with less people if it electronic, it was already shown by experts how easy it was a long while ago on my country, and we have been using paper ballots ever since.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-cyber-hacking


You need a far larger group to do with this with paper ballots, making it easier to find out about it.

[Beazy]

Id like to see a report on all the people who were turned away from their assigned poling stations because of this hack. This makes much more sense, because we know its impossible to remotely hack a voting machine, so the best way to effect the vote is to stop people from voting all together.

If the Russians stopped people from voting, IMHO, that is worse that altering the vote count. That's denying Americans one of our most protected rights.

[rogueMatthias]

>The people picked Trump!
>Did not get a majority.

lol
The electoral collage picked Trump.

Christ, are we still back to the whole "Popular Vote" thing.

Two people are running a sprint in the Olympics.

Both choose different tactics. One sprints as fast as he can, the other takes a steadier pace.

The one sprinting wins the sprint, the other comes second, but the slower keeps running and goes on to run a whole marathon!

Who the FUCK would say "Well, that first guy only won because he sprinted, but the second guy WON the marathon so he should get the medal". Nobody. Nobody would say that because it would be retarded. The Marathon was NOT the race they were competing in. Everyone would just say "well, they should have changed their tactics and sprinted more"; we certainly wouldn't be here months later with people still saying "BUT he LOST the marathon... LOL"

The popular vote isn't a thing. That's not what they were campaigning to "win". IT means LITERALLY. NOTHING.
To take it to the comparison before - If the marathon was meant to be the race to win, you don't think the first runner would have changed his tactics entirely? You really think everything would go exactly the same?

Sorry, off topic rant over

[Deleted]

1) "current and former officials tell TIME" -- Worthless sourcing
2) "Manipulation of voter data" =/= votes got switched to Trump
3) No Russian fingerprints -- Which can easily be faked anyway

Woah it's literally nothing, as usual.

[Xirrohon]

This is why you use paper ballots.

The hacks have nothing to do with altering the election. Maybe read the article before posting.

[Lenonis]

The popular vote isn't a thing. That's not what they were campaigning to "win". IT means LITERALLY. NOTHING.

The problem isn't the argument that Trump won the election, the problem is that people are saying that Trump has popular support, or a mandate from the people to put forward his agenda. Which, when discussing that rhetoric, the popular vote absolutely matters. Can you see the difference? In politics its an important one.

The mechanics of elections have allowed the GOP to be in power, but they have done so with fewer votes for POTUS, for the house, and for the senate. So there is a real disconnect between the "popular" will of the people and the results of the election.

And I, for one, will call out any attempts to claim that the GOP agenda has popular support.

[Traveler Voltin]

Aren't the electronic voting machines supposed to be offline or whatever to prevent hacking?

[Beazy]

Aren't the electronic voting machines supposed to be offline or whatever to prevent hacking?

It wasnt the votes that were hacked. It was the voter registration database in certain counties. So when people show up to vote, they are told they are not registered and forced to leave without voting. Im not sure how it is in other states, but in TX we have to register to a party, so if you wanted to stop dems from voting you could delete * from tblVoters where partyAffiliation in ('D', 'Democrat')

[Traveler Voltin]

It wasnt the votes that were hacked. It was the voter registration database in certain counties. So when people show up to vote, they are told they are not registered and forced to leave without voting. Im not sure how it is in other states, but in TX we have to register to a party, so if you wanted to stop dems from voting you could delete * from tblVoters where partyAffiliation in ('D', 'Democrat')

Now that makes sense.

[JohnBrown1917]

The hacks have nothing to do with altering the election. Maybe read the article before posting.

You mean the part where the machines where hacked?

[Rukh]

>The people picked Trump!
>Did not get a majority.

lol
The electoral collage picked Trump.

After this news, Maybe

[Xyonai]

So if something comes from this, what's to be done? Is there even a precedent for it?

I mean, if it turns out to have been foreign interference I imagine we're going to sanction them into the stone age.

[Edge-]

So if something comes from this, what's to be done? Is there even a precedent for it?

I mean, if it turns out to have been foreign interference I imagine we're going to sanction them into the stone age.

One would assume/hope, under normal conditions. But given the words/behavior of Trump and the GOP as of late when it comes to Russia, I'm sure they'll instead take it as a queue to send a handwritten thank-you note to Putin with all their names signed on the card.