HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hacked election

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:46 PM

Hacked election

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/election-results-hacked-3-states-trump-won-article-1.2884089?client=safari

45 replies, 3148 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hacked election (Original post)
apcalc Nov 2016 OP
lonestarnot Nov 2016 #1
napi21 Nov 2016 #2
athena Nov 2016 #7
napi21 Nov 2016 #12
athena Nov 2016 #13
pnwmom Nov 2016 #25
ffr Nov 2016 #16
elmac Nov 2016 #20
loyalsister Nov 2016 #3
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #4
athena Nov 2016 #5
mythology Nov 2016 #8
athena Nov 2016 #11
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #21
loyalsister Nov 2016 #6
athena Nov 2016 #9
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #10
athena Nov 2016 #14
WillowTree Nov 2016 #17
athena Nov 2016 #18
WillowTree Nov 2016 #22
loyalsister Nov 2016 #27
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #33
loyalsister Nov 2016 #34
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #40
loyalsister Nov 2016 #42
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #43
bigmonkey Nov 2016 #44
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2016 #19
pnwmom Nov 2016 #26
forthemiddle Nov 2016 #31
Sunlei Nov 2016 #37
forthemiddle Nov 2016 #39
Sunlei Nov 2016 #41
JonLP24 Nov 2016 #28
loyalsister Nov 2016 #29
JonLP24 Nov 2016 #32
loyalsister Nov 2016 #35
JonLP24 Nov 2016 #36
WillowTree Nov 2016 #15
world wide wally Nov 2016 #23
Hekate Nov 2016 #24
jmg257 Nov 2016 #30
Sunlei Nov 2016 #38
roamer65 Nov 2016 #45

Response to apcalc (Original post)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:48 PM

1. Rugh ro! Cats fucking fighting in the bag! Can't stop them now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:55 PM

2. Do you REALLY believe Hillary will challenge the outcome?

I'm not sure. I admit, it would be a wonderful thing, but I just don't think she wants to get into a fight that MIGHT not be winnable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:17 AM

7. She ran for the presidency.

She knew she might lose. She knew it would be hard for a woman to win the presidency for the first time. Maybe she's tired of being attacked, but the health of the country's democracy is at stake. If the people feel unsatisfied that the vote counting was done correctly, there should be an audit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:25 AM

12. Those districts in question had voting by electronic tabulators. AFAIK there is NO AUDIT TRAIL.

How are they going to do a recount? You run the program they use and you'll get the same result. IF there is fraud, It's almost guaranteed never to be found. I really wish I was wrong, but if there is no audit trail How can you proceed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:28 AM

13. I believe

one can look at the software on the machines and figure out whether it threw away votes or converted D votes to R, etc. I am not certain, but I believe there would be evidence that the system was hacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:47 AM

25. They discovered in one WI county using electronic machines that there were more votes

tallied than cast. Something went wrong with the software. When they fixed the problem, it turned out Trump had been given 1400 extra votes; Hillary, none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:39 AM

16. This is about election rigging/padding. She's just the catalyst to make the call.

In the name of democracy and fair elections. We all want that. If there's no foul play, the audit will bear that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:48 AM

20. Don't think she will

 

she is old school, has a lot of class and probably doesn't want to be seen as a sore loser. With that said, I hope she does, she, we should fight this to the bitter end. There is too much at stake and that may be the only reason she does challenge it, for the sake of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 12:57 AM

3. It was irresponsible when Trump said it before the election

and it's irresponsible to make this claim everytime we lose whether there is irrefutable, unquestionable evidence. It is in our best interest to resist and be there for our frightened brothers and sister, hold him and congress acountable in whatever way possible. And, start working toward protecting incumbent Democrats and try to elect more if possible.

Electoral college defection, claiming election tampering, etc are all recipes to mobilize republicans far beyong what happenned in 10 and 14.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:02 AM

4. You can't find irrefutable evidence unless you investigate.

It doesn't just drop out of the sky. There is enough evidence to investigate. What is the idea you are promoting, something like "no investigation without conclusive proof"? That's putting the cart before the horse, to put it mildly.

Election audits should be normal, and random. They are called for here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigmonkey (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:04 AM

5. Exactly.

This is like saying, let's not investigate all the deaths that appear to have been caused by this new drug because we don't have conclusive evidence that they were caused by the drug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:18 AM

8. It's more like investigating deaths of people who drink water

 

There is absolutely no evidence offered. It's an extraordinary claim. If they have something even approaching truth, put it out there for the world to see. Don't hide it in their back pocket, and put it on the Clinton campaign to be responsible. Frankly making these claims without offering evidence is irresponsible and just leads to people thinking they are real because they want to believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:22 AM

11. How do you explain

the exit polls being so wrong in some of the states, and always in the same direction?

How do you explain this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512617195

or this:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/
The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.

The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source.


The whole point of an audit is to look for evidence. Evidence therefore cannot be a requirement for an audit. This is why the candidate has the right to request a recount, without having to provide evidence. Please try to avoid muddying the waters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:51 AM

21. There is evidence, preliminary evidence.

"Extraordinary claim"
What are your credentials for being able to decide it is an extraordinary claim? If it's just your opinion, then using that phrase is essentially an attempt to politicize the analysis of the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigmonkey (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:15 AM

6. I'm saying don't start screaming that it happened without proof

as some are prone to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:19 AM

9. No one is saying it happened.

How is requesting an audit the same as "screaming that it happened without proof"? What we're saying is that there are suggestions that the election was hacked, and time is running out on requesting an audit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:19 AM

10. Calling for the proof to precede the investigation?

How can that work? Does this actually make sense to you? There is enough evidence to investigate. That's not the same as "saying it happened". My best guess is that metaphorically you are applying "innocent until proven guilty" to these events. Events don't enjoy that moral status of innocence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigmonkey (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:30 AM

14. Evidence is not even required for an investigation,

so your point is exactly on target.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/recount-rules-battleground-states-2016-presidential-election-231013

Michigan: A mandatory recount if 2,000 votes or less separate the top two candidates. Candidates can petition for a recount due to fraud or a counting error.


Wisconsin: Any candidate can request a recount within three days of completion of the initial tally. The recount is free to the requesting candidate if the margin of victory is less than 0.5 percent, otherwise it must be paid for in advance.


Pennsylvania: Automatic recount when vote margin is less than 0.5 percent. Voters can petition county boards for a recount. Voters or candidates can petition courts for a recount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:42 AM

17. Neither Wisconsin nor Pennsylvania came within 0.5 percent, so those are pretty much moot.

And Michigan is, for all intents and purposes, self-auditing which is why their results haven't been finalized yet. But even if Michigan ultimately goes for Secretary Clinton, that won't change the result, so what's the point again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:43 AM

18. That's for an automatic or free recount. The candidate can always request a recount.

That's what the text I quoted says.

Note that in PA, the candidate doesn't have to request it; the voters can, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:02 AM

22. Talk about the percentages & it sounds like tiny differences. Hard numbers tell a different story.

In Wisconsin the difference was almost 1%. That's a difference of over 27,000 votes. In Pennsylvania, the difference was over 1% which is over 68,000 votes. Pretty tough numbers to overcome. And she would have to reverse the results in both of those states and take Michigan to change the Electoral College total. Apparently the Clinton campaign doesn't think there's enough chance of that to raise the question at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigmonkey (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 07:57 AM

27. An investigation is one thing

"THEY STOLE THE ELECTION" hysteria without a full investigation is irresponsible. 1. It very well could turn out to not be true. 2. That rhetoric without facts discourages people from voting in the future. 3. Raising that kind of hell before there are verifiable replicable facts will backfire bigtime in 2018.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:50 PM

33. Again, you are calling for the facts before the investigation.

"Verifiable, replicable facts" come after the investigation. Why is this hard to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigmonkey (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:46 PM

34. You need facts to justify an investigation

Speculation does not serve as evidence of a hacked election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:47 PM

40. The hurdle for investigation is lower

You need an indication that investigation is warranted, not final proof. You are conflating the two, and that helps the authoritarian side in our politics. Surely that's not your intention.

Think of it this way, imagine a cop show. The cops want to investigate Mr. X, perhaps because he has motive and means. If your perspective were applied there, no investigation of Mr. X can occur until motive, means, and opportunity can be ascribed to him. But that can't happen until after the investigation. These investigations should be routine, as in law enforcement. Instead, the mere suggestion that investigation is warranted is treated as a conspiracy theory. It's not.

The facts necessary for a conviction cannot be a requirement for investigating. That would preclude all investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigmonkey (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:26 PM

42. This is not court

You have to have a significant number of people on your side. It's not going to happen because people are snmart enough to know that it would backfire. 1018 every democratic win contested. 2020 every democratic win contested. It's a stupid precedent to set not worthy of the people who saw through the birther BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #42)


Response to loyalsister (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:12 PM

44. It's more court than politics.

The republicans (I assume that's who you are referring to with 2018 and 2020) already contest elections. Look at North Carolina. You are assuming that elections can't be transparent to the degree that contestation would be irrelevant? Why are you making that assumption?

If the machinery is hacked, but investigating the hacking is _always_ assumed to be politically too dangerous, then investigation will forever be precluded. That's an open invitation to miscreants, if you ask me. Is this your intention? If not, then how can the U.S. ever have reliable voting infrastructure? The unreliable infrastructure helps the authoritarians, as your response indicates. I'm against that.

This should be routine. The fact that you are portraying investigation as a conspiracy theory, or as political dynamite, only confirms that the situation is currently intolerable.

If the election was lost due to hacking, then what purpose does it serve to discuss politics going forward? Is it going to be the case for the forseeable future that Democrats and progressives must suffer a permanent handicap in elections, via hacking? Stated another way, that Democrats and progressives will only be "allowed" to win if they win an overwhelming mandate? I have had folks respond to the possibility of hacking that way, that "it shouldn't have been close". Well, what if it wasn't? And if it was, then we should expect from now on to lose any close election? That's very bleak, and promotes technical "depressed votes".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:44 AM

19. Look how smug the presumptive winner was

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:50 AM

26. Computer faculty at Berkeley and MIT are calling for an audit of three states,

based on problems they have seen. They were or are members of the US Election Commission. I don't think they're being irresponsible.

For example, one county in WI has already had to have its vote count changed. They had more votes tallied than were cast. When the problem was fixed, it turned out Trump had gotten 1400 extra votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 09:48 AM

31. Do you have a link for this?

I live in Wisconsin, and I hadn't heard anything about this! I'd love to do some more digging.

Wisconsins voting machines are not connected to the internet, so can they be hacked?

Also, LaCrosse is having a recount for State Senate seat. This is one of the areas I believe that switched from Obama to Trump, so maybe something will come out of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:30 PM

37. In the article and yes malware can be installed through the ballot printing/entry machines. no inter

no internet needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:41 PM

39. Will the senate seat audit that they are doing

Show any problems?
After all the district that they are recounting is an Obamacare flip to a Trump area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:47 PM

41. I don't know. I want machine software checked by experts & the large chunks of BLANK ballots looked

at, especially the 90,000 blanks in Detroit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 08:25 AM

28. I think Trump was talking about himself when he said the election is rigged

I don't trust voting machines.

Documented problems

A number of problems with voting systems in Florida since the 2000 Presidential election.[65]
Fairfax County, Virginia, November 4, 2003. Some voters complained that they would cast their vote for a particular candidate and the indicator of that vote would go off shortly after.[66]
The Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) TSx voting system disenfranchised many voters in Alameda and San Diego Counties during the March 2, 2004, California presidential primary due to non-functional voter card encoders.[67] On April 30 California's secretary of state Kevin Shelley decertified all touch-screen machines and recommended criminal prosecution of Diebold Election Systems.[68] The California Attorney-General decided against criminal prosecution, but subsequently joined a lawsuit against Diebold for fraudulent claims made to election officials. Diebold settled that lawsuit by paying $2.6 million.[69] On February 17, 2006 the California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson then recertified Diebold Election Systems DRE and Optical Scan Voting System.[70]
In Napa County, California, March 2, 2004, an improperly calibrated marksense scanner overlooked 6,692 absentee ballot votes.[71]
Omesh Saigal, an IIT alumnus and IAS officer, demonstrated that the 2009 elections in India when Congress Party of India came back to power might be rigged. This forced the election commission to review the current EVMs.[72]
On October 30, 2006, the Dutch Minister of the Interior withdrew the license of 1187 voting machines from manufacturer Sdu NV, about 10% of the total number to be used, because it was proven by the General Intelligence and Security Service that one could eavesdrop on voting from up to 40 meters using Van Eck phreaking.[73] National elections are to be held 24 days after this decision. The decision was forced by the Dutch grass roots organisation Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet[74] ("We do not trust voting computers".[75][76]

(Snip)

Cuyahoga County, Ohio: The Diebold computer server froze and stopped counting votes then the printers jammed so paper copies could not be retrieved for many votes and there was no way to be sure of the accuracy of the votes when the votes were being counted.[79]
Waldenburg, Arkansas: The touch screen computer tallied zero votes for one mayoral candidate who confirmed that he certainly voted for himself and therefore there would be a minimum of one vote; this is a case of disappearing votes on touchscreen machines.[78]

(Snip)

In Finland, the Supreme Administrative Court declared invalid the results of a pilot electronic vote in three municipalities, and ordered a rerun of the municipal elections (Karkkila, Kauniainen and Vihti). The system had a usability problem where the messages were ambiguous on whether the vote had been cast. In a total of 232 cases (2% of votes), voters had logged in, selected their vote but not confirmed it, and left the booth; the votes were not recorded.[81] Following the failure of the pilot election, the Finnish government has abandoned plans to continue electronic voting based on voting machines. In the memo[82] it was concluded, that the voting machine is not developed any more, and Finnish government will follow the development of different electronic voting systems worldwide.
2008 United States elections:
Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas: Touch screen voting machines flipped votes in early voting trials.[83]
Humboldt County, California: A security flaw erased 197 votes from the computer database.[84]
In 2010, graduate students from the University of Michigan hacked into the District of Columbia online voting systems during an online voting mock test run and changed all the cast ballots to cater to their preferred candidates. This voting system was being tested for military voters and overseas citizens, allowing them to vote on the Web, and was scheduled to run later that year. It only took the hackers, a team of computer scientists, thirty-six hours to find the list of the government’s passwords and break into the system.[85]

(Snip)

The Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) AccuVote-TSx voting system was studied by a group of Princeton University computer scientists in 2006. Their results showed that the AccuVote-TSx was insecure and could be "installed with vote-stealing software in under a minute." The scientists also said that machines can transmit computer viruses from one to another "during normal pre- and post-election activity."[89]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting

This is coming from computer scientists advising to check it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 08:40 AM

29. I know he was

Democrats are not above conspiracy theories and hysteria, though.
The fact that 46% of the population didn't vote means that the public impetus to go all in and provoke the anxiety we saw in 2000. It would not endear people to her more, if anything it will backfire. Repubs win a veto proof congress in 2018. After hundreds of books defending the original results were published and that conventional wisdom would become Hillary supporters were outraged that Trump said he wouldn't accept the results and turned around and did it themselves. We cannot have it both ways and would pay dearly in the future trying. We will have wasted a lot of time and energy building a precedent to challenge every future election.

Be spiteful and resist, but lets not be dumb enough to ensure a nightmare presidency and who knows what kind of unrest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:52 AM

32. I hardly consider voting machines conspiracy theories

Unless you mean true conspiracies. I remember 8 years ago on PBS they had a guest who showed how easy it is to hack into one and rig it for the results you want.

The issue with the machines isn't anything new, I remember Diebold in 2004, their CEO gave Bush a large check and "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Hillary Clinton did worse in counties with machine ballots than paper ballot counties. I recall they conveniently went down when the polls closed in Durham, North Carolina in a predominantly black district. I'm sure it's all a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:52 PM

35. Was that the only option?

If so those couties must be extremely wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:23 PM

36. I would have to research each individual area

That has electronic voting but I think most who are interested with ensuring the election process is fair or concerned about problems & costs ditches them while those who wouldn't mind rigging an election would push for more electronic only measures like Georgia.

It is interesting how often the machines conveniently go down all over the US especially in areas where the GOP would love to suppress the vote.

11
Long lines plagued some polling places

As voters arrived at the polls in metro Atlanta, some were met by long lines.

In southwest Atlanta, frustrated voters got backed up waiting when computers went down at Therell High School.

Poll workers told Channel 2’s Steve Gelhbach that four computers that process the voters' information and issue cards to take to the actual voting machine came online went down for about 40 minutes around 8 a.m.

So while there were plenty of voting machines, only about five people were using them at any one time.

That caused a big backup and a line that snaked around the gym.

One voter said she stopped counting after about 30 people left in frustration.

"We had one young man, (it) was his first time voting, and he just got discouraged and he left,” said Shimisha Rawlings. “I don't think he's going to come back. We waited for almost an hour so he's not going to come back."

In South Fulton County, a glitch hit voting machines sending them down and causing lines to back up.

Channel 2’s Audrey Washington learned that at one point, only three out of the eight machines were working at the polling location on Godby Road.

That caused the crowds to grow inside the polling place.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/election-day-georgia-hits-the-polls-to-chose-next-president/465082588

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:36 AM

15. Are those straight or flexible straws they're grasping at?

Wisconsin's metropolitan areas, where Clinton did well, use paper ballots. Rural Wisconsin, where she did not, relies on electronic machines.

The group apparently has no proof of hacking, but said the suspicious pattern is enough for an independent review.


The fact that larger, more metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal and rural areas more conservative pretty much regardless of what state you're talking about is nothing new and doesn't constitute a "suspicious pattern" in the real world. And the fact that the results in the states in question were close, but not within the margin of error, does not make demanding recounts necessary or reasonable. If it did, do you honestly think Secretary Clinton wouldn't have pursued it already?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:13 AM

23. There is no question it was hacked.

Proving it is the trick and I hope there are some very smart people up to the task.
This is America's last gasp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:25 AM

24. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 09:08 AM

30. "The group apparently has no proof of hacking..."

Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)



At least someone says it MAY be so.

Just not the guy who claims it may be so:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

J. Halderman
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.168pwqmmx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:31 PM

38. because NONE of the machines are checked by anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:13 PM

45. MI uses paper ballots.

They are fed into a reader, so a recount would be very easy.

Last I looked, Dumps lead was down to 9000 votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread