Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections [View all]C Moon
(13,556 posts)12. There was something going on. Some say it's not possible to hack those machines.
But while watching the results unfold in the last election, and seeing all the predictions failing left and right in real time; and the experts completely befuddled by what was happening; and DU being shut down for days by hackers; etc; etc; I believe 100% there was something illegal going on with those machines.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections [View all]
L. Coyote
Apr 2017
OP
I was surprised the percentage so low. no wonder clintons and obama's are warming
Laura PourMeADrink
Apr 2017
#1
The touchscreen models are connected to a unit that tallies them locally.
Crash2Parties
Apr 2017
#17
says who? no doubt the public is not allowed to see the hardware of these machines.
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#29
too risky? how precisely would a hacker be ID'd, caught, and sufficient evidence found to convict sa
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#31
You have to do some b&e to actually get to the machines and install the malware.
Jonny Appleseed
Apr 2017
#34
I have had even people here telling me they weren't hacked because there is no evidence
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#5
when you can't find evidence that the vote is legit, THAT is a problem. do you truly just expect peo
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#27
Why do you have faith that the votes cast using dead trees were accurately counted?
Jonny Appleseed
Apr 2017
#32
Because of how they do it here. We had a paper recount when the Gubernatorial vote was very close
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#39
The older Diebold style machines have no way to tell if their totals have been altered.
Crash2Parties
Apr 2017
#18
The really, really frustrating part is that such as system could be exceedingly secure and reliable.
Crash2Parties
Apr 2017
#33
exactly, and you can't get a recount, until you prove that you need one, and you can't prove
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#28
There was something going on. Some say it's not possible to hack those machines.
C Moon
Apr 2017
#12
There is no need to hack the machines; the chain from the machines to state totals is the problem.
Crash2Parties
Apr 2017
#19
i think there are multiple possible points of compromise in the system; one doesn't rule out
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#22
you're just supposed to "trust" that your invisible vote is accurately counted. nt
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#23
Pretty tough in California; ours are expected to be able to pass stringent audits & certifications.
Crash2Parties
Apr 2017
#20
that's why the paper ballots should be counted by hand/eye, all the time. nt
TheFrenchRazor
Apr 2017
#24
You know when you have a STRONG intuition about something but can't prove its validity?
butdiduvote
Apr 2017
#37