Election hackers DID alter voter rolls

[GreenJesus]

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

lol
The electoral collage picked Trump.

The electoral college vote for the person that won the state.. By law in most states they are forced to vote for the popular vote winner of THEIR state. Stop putting it on some "elites" that voted against the will of the people.. You are showing how uneducated you are. Hillary should have spent less attention and money on boosting her popular vote in California and spent that time and money on swing states instead. California was going to be a win anyway, no idea why she spent so much time and money there.

[Edge-]

Hillary should have spent less attention and money on boosting her popular vote in California and spent that time and money on swing states instead. California was going to be a win anyway, no idea why she spent so much time and money there.

She barely spent any time campaigning in California, though did fundraise there. But I'm glad to see the, "JUST BLAME/DISCOUNT CALIFORNIA!" argument is still going strong, despite how ludicrously undemocratic and silly it is.

[Kujako]

By law in most states they are forced to vote for the popular vote winner of THEIR state.

Who told you such lies?

[GreenJesus]

Who told you such lies?

There are 30 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (21 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast. Five states provide a penalty of some sort for a deviant vote, and six states provide for the vote to be canceled and the elector replaced (two states do both).

The Uniform Law Commission has drafted and recommended a law called the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act that provides for electors to pledge to vote for a candidate, and for them to be replaced with an alternate in the event that they do not vote as pledged. As of December 2016, that Act has been adopted by Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electora...tor_state_laws

They are required, although there is no penalty in many cases.

[Bullettime]

There are 30 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (21 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast. Five states provide a penalty of some sort for a deviant vote, and six states provide for the vote to be canceled and the elector replaced (two states do both).

The Uniform Law Commission has drafted and recommended a law called the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act that provides for electors to pledge to vote for a candidate, and for them to be replaced with an alternate in the event that they do not vote as pledged. As of December 2016, that Act has been adopted by Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electora...tor_state_laws

They are required, although there is no penalty in many cases.

To be fair, if electors weren't partisan to begin with, that act wouldn't stand up if someone refused and it went to the Supreme Court (edit: hell, if it were even heard by a lower federal court.) It's just a matter of no one pushing the bounds.

[Kujako]

There are 30 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (21 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast. Five states provide a penalty of some sort for a deviant vote, and six states provide for the vote to be canceled and the elector replaced (two states do both).

The Uniform Law Commission has drafted and recommended a law called the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act that provides for electors to pledge to vote for a candidate, and for them to be replaced with an alternate in the event that they do not vote as pledged. As of December 2016, that Act has been adopted by Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada.

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electora...tor_state_laws

Although there is no penalty in many cases

You claimed they had to vote for the winner of the popular vote, in their state. That's not how it works except in winner take all states, and even then it's suspect due to gerrymandering. Even states where they are required to vote how the voters say they should, the penalty for not doing so is often a slap on the wrist. In 2004 one of them voted for John Ewards (not Edwards), who wasn't even a Presidential candidate (John Edwards was a VP candidate. He was awarded the vote for President).

[cubby]

Pen, Paper and scantrons made by 3 different manufacturers so hacking one of those isn't enough.
And voter rolls kept on paper.
Do it already.


Every horrible thing ever imagined about electronic voting / computerized vote tallying has gone from speculation to fact. And this comes from a computer scientist. When it comes to voting and democracy, big deal if we have to wait a day for the votes to be tallied by hand.

"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." -Stalin

Has never been more true.

If I understand correctly, the best solution to a murky problem would be 100% mail in ballots. Obviously, there would be problems, as any method will always have some problems. But iirc, this one has the least amount, and the greatest security from hacking.

- - - Updated - - -

The electoral college vote for the person that won the state.. By law in most states they are forced to vote for the popular vote winner of THEIR state. Stop putting it on some "elites" that voted against the will of the people.. You are showing how uneducated you are. Hillary should have spent less attention and money on boosting her popular vote in California and spent that time and money on swing states instead. California was going to be a win anyway, no idea why she spent so much time and money there.

I love that you Trumpers still play this "california blame game". It's adorable.

The EC is a horrifically outdated voting system that makes some votes worth more than others.

[Bullettime]

"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." -Stalin

Has never been more true.

If I understand correctly, the best solution to a murky problem would be 100% mail in ballots. Obviously, there would be problems, as any method will always have some problems. But iirc, this one has the least amount, and the greatest security from hacking.

- - - Updated - - -



I love that you Trumpers still play this "california blame game". It's adorable.

The EC is a horrifically outdated voting system that makes some votes worth more than others.

Agreed. If individual states can't be responsible to handle polling locations adequately and technology is so prone to cyber attacks now, they need to just mail all citizens a ballot.

[Blur4stuff]

votes should be equal

and preferably not altered by foreign agents

[Cthulhu 2020]

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

Then why do you people keep claiming that the first sprinter ran farther? Because saying Trump was the people's choice or the people's vote is doing exactly that, lol.

[cubby]

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

You understand that Trump is the one that keeps bringing that up, right? He literally can't let it go.

[Alakallanar]

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."

To be fair, we only know that the most significant amount of detected fraud happens at the paper level.

One serious argument against electronic voting is the arbitrary scaling. With paper ballots the amount of votes you can influence/change increases roughly linear with the number of people involved in the plot. And the more people involved the larger becomes the risk of detection. With electronic voting changing the result by 10,000,000 votes is just as difficult as changing it by 1 vote and can be done by a single person. (Oversimplifying a bit here, but the general idea should be clear.)

Secondly, yes electronic voting done right can be very safe and hard to manipulate. Problem is the "done right" part. That practically never happens.

Relevant:

While I don't agree 100% with this video, for the most part Tom Scott is not wrong.
2004
2008
2012
2012

[Orange Joe]

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.

You are going to believe what you want to believe anyways.


Feel free to check my history, I have never made a claim the White house lies.


White house =/= Trump, this has been made clear by many contradictions already.

[Shalcker]

You are going to believe what you want to believe anyways.
Feel free to check my history, I have never made a claim the White house lies.
White house =/= Trump, this has been made clear by many contradictions already.

No matter how you trust them, there is no evidence presented so far. Only more allegations.

It has nothing to do with "believing"; evidence might exist. But none of it was presented to public. That is all.

[Orbitus]

No matter how you trust them, there is no evidence presented so far. Only more allegations.

It has nothing to do with "believing"; evidence might exist. But none of it was presented to public. That is all.

Sorry, but a Russian stooge, defending Russian meddling and hacking, isn't entirely surprising. I will go with the experts and the people in the intelligence agencies over someone so adamantly defending Putin and his meddling.

[Orange Joe]

No matter how you trust them, there is no evidence presented so far. Only more allegations.

It has nothing to do with "believing"; evidence might exist. But none of it was presented to public. That is all.

But you seem to be able to post things without evidence, Funny isn't it?



http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...releasing-info

Wheres you evidence in that post?

[Xirrohon]

You mean the part where the machines where hacked?

Both articles state that votes werent manipulated. But the first thing you said was use paper ballots...

[Shalcker]

But you seem to be able to post things without evidence, Funny isn't it?
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...releasing-info
Wheres you evidence in that post?

It is in Politico article linked. If you read you'll see names, dates, how people responded and situation developed.

Things mentioned there also had fair amount of media coverage at the time, it wasn't hidden at all.

...can you name _any_ names from OPs articles that could confirm or deny what it alleges? Any reports from media on this thing actually happening as it supposedly happened at the time?

[Orange Joe]

It is in Politico article linked. If you read you'll see names, dates, how people responded and situation developed.

Things mentioned there also had fair amount of media coverage at the time, it wasn't hidden at all.

...can you name _any_ names from OPs articles that could confirm or deny what it alleges? Any reports from media on this thing actually happening as it supposedly happened at the time?

http://time.com/4828306/russian-hack...-private-data/

Link in OP. I suggest you watch video that has names and positions of people making the claims.

[Orbitus]

http://time.com/4828306/russian-hack...-private-data/

Link in OP. I suggest you watch video that has names and positions of people making the claims.

You do know that Shalcker will handwave this away right? He wants physical evidence that it happened. These people to him and the right wingers that are now defending Russia after wanting to bomb them for 60 years, will do anything to defend Trump and the Russian meddling because they got their guy in.