General Discussion

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)

27. when you can't find evidence that the vote is legit, THAT is a problem. do you truly just expect peo

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:45 AM

Apr 2017

to have faith that their invisible computer votes were accurately counted, with no evidence whatsoever to prove that? i'm sorry, i am not nearly that trusting. the very fact that there is a built-in lack of evidence with these voting machines should be reason enough to disqualify them.

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:

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

Yeah but it needs to be done machine by machine. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #2

That simply is not true. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #4

Elaborate? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #6

The touchscreen models are connected to a unit that tallies them locally. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #17

That doesn't nullify what I said Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #35

says who? no doubt the public is not allowed to see the hardware of these machines. TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #29

Why would you want them to? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #36

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

You don't have to hack the machines individually. sarah FAILIN Apr 2017 #3

I have had even people here telling me they weren't hacked because there is no evidence pnwmom Apr 2017 #5

That's asking to prove a negative. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #7

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 recount in Wisconsin provides the evidence mythology Apr 2017 #41

The older Diebold style machines have no way to tell if their totals have been altered. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #18

And the newer optical scanners come with an optional feature that allows pnwmom Apr 2017 #21

that doesn't even take into account unknown "back doors" and such. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #26

Why, it's almost like the election was just a charade in some states... Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #30

The really, really frustrating part is that such as system could be exceedingly secure and reliable. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #33

The national polls were more accurate than in 2012 mythology Apr 2017 #42

exactly, and you can't get a recount, until you prove that you need one, and you can't prove TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #28

How Much Do We Really Value Our Democracy? dlk Apr 2017 #8

clearly the PTB like the current system. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #25

What is equally ominous was the hacking into several state triron Apr 2017 #9

I have a relative that works for Diebold... LakeArenal Apr 2017 #10

K and R oasis Apr 2017 #11

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

In my state (PA), that percentage is pretty low. dchill Apr 2017 #13

Dingh, ding, ding, we have a winner. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #15

you're just supposed to "trust" that your invisible vote is accurately counted. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #23

PA is actually pretty secure Amishman Apr 2017 #44

I'm sorry, but without a separate, verifiable paper trail... dchill Apr 2017 #45

You can't hack paper ballots. YOHABLO Apr 2017 #14

You can hack tabulators. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #16

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

Call me a naysayer but I can't get behind this stuff. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #38

That's like saying the tree can have only one apple. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #46

I'm not saying people shouldn't look into it Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #48

Trust but Verify. sagesnow Apr 2017 #40

If a voting machine was hooked to a network in any way, it would be hackable. Vinca Apr 2017 #43

How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes L. Coyote Apr 2017 #47