What if Russian hackers were going for the voting machines, not just the email servers?

[garybeck]

If you wanted to affect an election. Would you put all your resources into rehashing an old news story about emails that the public was already aware of and already said "enough with the damn emails!" ? Or would you aim your efforts on something that could actually affect the election directly?

We already know that technically it is possible to hack/rig an election. We've seen it demonstrated and documented many times by the world's most knowledgeable computer security experts.

We are now hearing that a Russian hacker put out a "virus" and his wife said "'The Virus My Husband Allegedly Created Was Related to Trump's Victory." A virus is exactly how the voting machines would be rigged. And no one would know. not the Secretaries of States, not the press, not the local officials. No one would know, unless there were real, robust hand-counted audits on the machines. To my knowledge that did not happen.

IMHO, the election results were so far off from the polling, it can't be explained easily.

One possible explanation has to be rigging. Any objective investigator would have to at least consider this as a possibility.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. There is no question in my mind that any republican including

you know who got more votes than any democrat in all those surprise states.

They didnt.

IF it is ever proven with hard evidence, I dont know. There are more of us than them, this did not happen.

[L. Coyote]

2. Just read the numbers:

[mythology]

8. Exit poll conspiracy theories are dumb

https://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

[L. Coyote]

10. And statistics is just mythology.

[pnwmom]

21. You're seriously posting an article from June 2016?

[L. Coyote]

37. Yep. Primary exit polls are apples vs. oranges for general election polling.

And battleground states were very rigorous scientifically compared to states with little doubt about who would win, huge sampling numbers and many polls too. Likewise, the battleground states exit polling was genuinely defensible statistical sampling sizes.

Also, the 2004 to 2016 comparison is valid and significant because the same exact Senate seats are up for re-election. We had a much higher red shift (exit polls vs. reported vote counts) where Senate seats are in play.

[pnwmom]

39. But we don't have to rely on exit polls to know there was a strong possibility of hacking.

We know that the Russians were hacking elections offices. We know that the vast majority of machines and/or ballots were not audited. We know that the paper scanners used in many states contained an option for connecting to the internet (but didn't track how many used that option). We know that the electronic machines couldn't be recounted.

And we KNOW that Russia wanted to help DT win.

So why should anyone feel secure that our election itself wasn't tampered with?

[L. Coyote]

41. And we know voting equipment can contain vulnerable modems.

I confirmed that the scanning machines used in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties contain a cellular modem to allow results to be sent over the Internet making them vulnerable to insider and sophisticated hackers. ............

http://electionnightmares.com/2016/12/12/ess-ds200-wireless-vulnerabilities/

[center]




http://jqjacobs.net/politics/spreadsheets.html#wisconsin

[ElementaryPenguin]

42. Ignoring exit poll discrepancies is dumber!

Exit polls were created for the purpose of detecting fraud - not for the networks to get a kick out of some demographic stats!

[Amaryllis]

35. THere is also this:

NOt related to numbers specifically but certainly suspicious:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/spammer-s-arrest-eyed-for-trump-russia-ties-918364739855
The Rachel Maddow Show 4/10/17
Spammer's arrest eyed for Trump Russia ties
Rachel Maddow reports on the latest developments in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the possibility of coordination with the Donald Trump campaign, including the arrest of a Russian hacker in Spain at the request of the FBI.

This Russian Hacker's Wife Says He Was Arrested For Being "Linked To Trump's Win"

Pyotr Levashov, known online as Peter Severa, was detained in Spain over the weekend. His wife says it’s because of his involvement with a “computer virus” linked to the election.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/this-is-the-russian-hacker-detained-in-spain-for-helping?utm_term=.stmkNQPL34#.rva53XepbD

[Amaryllis]

36. And then there is this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/russians-suspected-hacking-wisconsin-dems/97023222/

http://www.alternet.org/new-video-watch-wisconsin-election-officials-reject-hand-counts-after-electronic-scanners-make-big

http://time.com/4599886/detroit-voting-machine-failures-were-widespread-on-election-day/

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/01/according-declassified-report-russians hacked local and state election boards

https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/sfpauly/blog/2016/11/did-gop-strip-flip-2016-selection-bob-fitrakis-and-harvey-wasserman

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-voting-technology/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37486-the-shocking-truth-about-election-rigging-in-america

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/01/23/russians-suspected-hacking-local-dems/96965824/

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Which is why we need a full and impartial investigation.

If we don't know their methods and how far they got, we can't protect ourselves from this type of interference and all future election results will be suspect.

[Chasstev365]

4. Why would the GOP need Russia to do it?

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

They did it to Max Cleland in GA. in 2002 and to John Kerry in Ohio in 2004!

[garybeck]

7. maybe because

it was Trump, not the GOP

[L. Coyote]

12. The Presidential election was in 2004. Or did i go senile?

How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes

[Chasstev365]

16. You are correct! Will edit!

[Amaryllis]

24. And to Al Gore in Florida 2000.

[Cracklin Charlie]

5. Why would they do all that other stuff,

And then leave the "actual" election to chance?

Makes no sense.

[bettyellen]

6. You'd try to do both of you could- murk up the water as much as possible too.

[mythology]

9. So your theory is that somebody wrote a virus that worked

Not only across systems from different vendors, to non-networked systems, managed to match the national polls, and matched to counties in Wisconsin that were hand recounted? Your theory is, to be charitable, farfetched.

[garybeck]

11. ahem.

i don't need your charity. thanks though.

to address your "non-networked" issue, networking is not necessary. the memory cards are all programmed at a central location for each vendor.

there are a very few number of vendors.

the results did not match the national polls.

i can't speak for wisconsin, i haven't looked that closely.

but the fact remains that our system is vulnerable to hacking. that is indisputable. and the election results were very far off from prepolling and exit polling. the chances of such a dicscrepancy without some kind of explanation are pretty low.

I'm not saying anything in particular happened. I'm saying it's possible and it is just as plausible as other explanations that are being thrown around.

[jmg257]

20. The results and the exit polls were pretty spot on.

Like really accurate.

[jackssonjack]

25. No they weren't

Let's talk about what you found this week. I'm looking at your 2016 presidential chart. I'm looking at North Carolina for example, where it says the exit poll margin was 2.1% ahead for Clinton, but the final vote count showed Trump with a 3.8% lead. You have similar 4.4% Clinton lead in Pennsylvania but then losing by 1.2% to Trump, a 5.6% shift. You have Florida where she was ahead in exit polls by 1.3% and ends up losing by 1.3%, a 2.6% shift.Is there any reason you can point to as to why you are seeing that in so many different states? JS: First of all, let me preface it by saying that what they've done since 2004 is exit poll fewer and fewer states. I think there were about 30 states exit polled this time, 20 states were left out because they were considered to be locks, non-competitive. What that does from a forensics standpoint is that it cuts our baseline for comparison of likely targets for manipulation against unlikely targets. ... It's as if they had a certain limited amount of resources, and they decided to really plow it into getting larger sample sizes in states that they knew were going to be competitive and possibly controversial.

North Carolina was one of those. I believe it had the largest sample size in the country. Almost 4,000 voters were sampled and the usual sample size in these state exit polls is somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 if they expect it to be competitive. That was basically a double sampling that reduces the mathematical margin of error. That 5.9% red shift from Clinton to Trump is way outside the margin of error for that poll and therefore very unlikely to occur by chance. What might have made it happen? People could've been lying to the exit pollster. The exit pollster could've been all young urban college kids and the Trump voters might have been reluctant to comply with their requests. There might have been refusals from Trump voters.

http://www.alternet.org/something-stinks-when-exit-polls-and-official-counts-dont-match

[jmg257]

46. Check the exit polls per state on CNN - pretty spot on.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/michigan
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/wisconsin
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/florida

etc etc

[jackssonjack]

50. Yes I see that.

Please go to the link I provided and see how CNN and other news organizations get those numbers.
They were not close as I posted in an earlier comment.

[jmg257]

58. Seems they want to refer to 'raw exit poll data', or unadjusted data, which is not accurate.

Without adjusting to match the actual voter turnout, the exit polls would be wrong.

I.E...
If exit polls show blacks vote 95% for Clinton, and whites vote 60% for trump, but in the 20 or so exit polling places, 75% of the people they polled were black, then the data has to be adjusted to match the actual overall turn out which may be more like 50/50 or whatever.

 When the polls close, pollsters don’t adjust the data to “match the official results.” They use the official results from the relatively small number of polling places where they conducted interviews to refine their sample. For example, if their model assumed that 30 percent of voters at a polling place would be black, and that number actually turns out to be 20 percent, or 40 percent, then they’ll weight the data accordingly. During this period, they’re also entering any surveys that were sent in late (again, this is all based on incomplete data).

These adjustments, and the inclusion of those late surveys, can account for significant shifts between the preliminary numbers posted when the polls close and the release of the final exit polls an hour or so later. But the important point here is that the final results are more accurate, not less so.

[jackssonjack]

59. What he is saying is that they force the exit polls to match voter count.

From CNN :


CNN Statistician Jonathan Simon: I've been working in this field which we call election forensics for about 15 years, since the 2000 election. Certainly things kicked in with the 2004 election and the exit polls there. I was actually the person who downloaded the exit polls that were left up on the CNN website which then made it possible to compare the unadjusted exit polls—and we can explain that in a bit—compare the exit polls with the vote counts and show through all those disparities that there was reason to suspect possible manipulation of the vote counts.

JS: Of course, we don't get the raw data. The raw data would be... we have three definitions here. There's raw data, which is the actual questionnaires and the simple numerical toting up of answers on the questionnaire. That is never publicly released. If you want to characterize it as such, it's what's inside the sausage of exit polls, and we are not privileged to see that. I've had one opportunity in my life through an inside source to actually look at some of the raw data, but that's a very rare thing. It's not generally accessible to the public. Many of us have clamored for the public release of that raw data, certainly in the aftermath of the 2004 election, and have been denied it.
Then there is the weighted exit poll data and that's what the exit pollsters put out as soon as the polls close. This has been demographically weighted to their best approximation of what the electorate looked like and it is very valuable information. That's what I was able to download in 2004 and that's what I was able to download in many of the elections since, and that's what I was able to download this Tuesday.
Then you have adjusted exit polls and what happens is they take the vote counts as they come in and--they use the term of art "forcing”--they force the exit polls to congruence with that vote count data so that by the end of the night or by the next morning when you have your final vote counts and final exit polls, the exit polls and the vote counts will match, but that's only because in essence they've been forced to match the vote counts.

>

"we want exit polls that are independent as possible from the actual vote count data, which then becomes blended in as the evening goes on from the time the polls close until whenever the final vote counts are available. That vote count data becomes blended in with the exit poll algorithm and gradually pulls the exit polls into congruence with the vote counts, at which point they're useful for academic analysis of demographics, but they're no longer useful for validating the vote counts.


http://www.alternet.org/something-stinks-when-exit-polls-and-official-counts-dont-match

[jmg257]

60. Thanks...that was an interesting take on the pills.

[sarah FAILIN]

27. This is my theory

Nobody hacked the election, they hacked the programming of the actual machines. One paid off programmer is all it takes.

[2naSalit]

54. +1

[FakeNoose]

55. Yes the GOP knew that Deibold voting machine tampering was possible YEARS ago

That's why they insisted that these machines be installed all over the US.

They played the long game and waited while the poorer areas switched to the machines.
However it's paid off handsomely because they've managed to steal elections while nobody was looking.

I can't even say if this is done by the Russians, it could be totally the GOP with no outside help.

The Deibold machines are hackable, and they have been hacked.
Which party benefited? One guess.

[magicarpet]

43. Electronic voting machines are highly vulnerable to tampering says Woolsey former chair CIA.

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 07:20 PM - Edit history (2)

Woolsey:
"The real danger here - approx. 25% of the electronic voting machines do not have a paper trail. So if the electronics are tampered with you will not know and you can not do a recount. We have got to get that fixed."

(Woolsey's comment about Russia tampering with our elections and electronic voter machines. Speaking on. CNN - Out Front - Erin Burnett panel of pundits.)

Statement 4/5th mark toward the end.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/ex-cia-head-most-important-issue-is-stopping-russia-from-hacking-voting-machines-in-future-elections/

[HoneyBadger]

52. The memory cards are still there

Why not check them

[sarah FAILIN]

57. The company that runs the show with the machines won't allow it.

Nothing suspicious there, right?

[L. Coyote]

13. If you understood how elections are tabulated, you wouldn't make such amateur errors.

[ananda]

14. All I've been asking myself since Nov. 8th is ..

.. why didn't Anonymous deal with Russian hacking?

This truly baffles me.

[L. Coyote]

15. Actually, it is likelier the Republican hackers said, "Sorry, get in line you newbies."

[niyad]

17. listen to Keith Olbermann's piece "trump panicking about russia"- and from the 5 minute

mark on, you have your answer. hacking for the voter rolls, micro-targeting, and steve bannon and cambridge analytica. sickening.

[Hoyt]

18. If they were, there should be some proof, not just conspiracy theories. I'm all for nailing them,

but with evidence. Otherwise, we just look like GOPers dreaming up conspiracies when Obama was Prez. Sorry.

[jackssonjack]

32. The fact that all recounts were prevented.

That we've been consistently told electronic voting machines can't be hacked. They can, in 7 seconds.
That there is no way to plant a virus. It can be done
That we've been told none can be connected to the internet. They can be.
That it would be impossible to change the tallies because you'd have to do it all over to cover many areas. Not true. Just pick out a couple of Democratic counties in a few swing states. All that is needed is Republicans at the helm of those swing states and or people like County Clerk, Kathy Nickolaus who counts votes for Waukesha Country Wisconsin or those who have access to these machines.

We know that the most commonly used electronic voting machines are from three major privately owned companies. ESS owned by a Diebold Bro., Dominion Voting Systems Corporation formerly named Diebold. both run by Bob and Todd Diebold both far right Christian zealots., and HartInterCivic H.I.G. as of October 2012, was the 11th largest of all the contributors to the Romney effort.

At one point, there were 19 voting machine companies listed in the Federal Election Commission Buyers Guide, but the guide is no longer available. Through a series of mergers, acquisitions, and business failures, the voting machine industry currently is dominated by the three companies. All three companies are privately held and do not disclose their revenue or profits.
http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000263


The voting counts have raised the eyebrows of many statisticians. We know Russians are allover and recruiting agents. We know of many Republicans that have embraced the Russians and have connections to Putin.
This is evidence. There is every reason to scrutinize these results. There is no reason we shouldn't demand to see software regardless of patent/ trademark/copyright laws. We cannot get proof without investigating the evidence we already have.

[Hoyt]

38. Nothing concrete. I can read the same sort of stuff about Kennedy and Lincoln assassination, World

Congress Centers, etc.

There is no doubt it COULD happen; but that is not evidence it did. Worse, even less "evidence" it was done at Trump direction. Besides, we've meddled in Russian elections before.

[jackssonjack]

44. Low and behold both were investigated

over and over again. Evidence is not proof that it did only that it could hence the term "circumstantial evidence".

There is even more evidence that any meddling was doine at Trump direction than ever before. His entire staff has connections to prominent Russians , have made lucrative deals and failed to report both.

And this argument:
"Besides, we've meddled in Russian elections before."

Holds no water. If it's wrong, its wrong for everyone, that doesn't excuse any meddling by anyone today uS Russia or otherwise. I really don't understand the logic in making that argument.

[Hoyt]

45. What evidence do you havr Trump directed it. I'll be glad to eat crow

dung if proven. But so far, not much evidence anything happened but hacking of DNC by someone, perhaps Ruskies.

[jmg257]

19. How would the viruses get on the voting machines? And why would the ICA

say there was no vote hacking?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Infected USB sticks. Infection in ROM at factory. Infect the TABULATION systems. Many ways. . . . nt

[ProfessorPlum]

22. Why would they not

no one believes it when you tell them how vulnerable these systems turn out to be. It would be the easiest thing in the world to get away with, because no one wants to believe it is possible.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Trump's lawyers fought feverishly to prevent forensic audit of voting machines in PA MI WI

Trump's lawyers fought feverishly to prevent forensic audit of voting machines in PA MI WI
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028926477

[Amaryllis]

29. Read this thread and then try to believe there were not voting machine problems:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8926477
Trump's lawyers fought feverishly to prevent forensic audit of voting machines in PA MI WI
Breaking -- #VoteHacking? @TheJusticeDept confirms 90 pages of swing state machine flaws in #FOIA answer. #NAVO. https://navo-us.org/
With FOIA documents.

[BittyJenkins]

30. I remember Rudy Giuliani grinning on a news show a couple of days before the election.

They were asking Rudy what the plans were after Trump lost. He grinned and said he was not worried, they still had a few surprises up their sleeve. I have always thought the machines were hacked.

[triron]

31. They did hack into some state voter registration databases.

(from what I understand). Seems like some manipulation could have been done here.

[Maine-i-acs]

33. Google "Clint Curtis Testimony".

The code already exists.

[MichMan]

34. What if it was the exit polls that were hacked?

How do we know that the exit polls weren't hacked to make it seem suspicious?

[L. Coyote]

40. What, would Hillary do that so she would be able to complain after she lost?

Or would the Republicans do that to make Dems look silly for complaining after they won?
Or would aliens do that to blame the Bigfoot? Seriously, think about what you just wrote.
Or maybe by having the exit polls for contested Senate seats be off by 4.7% in 2016, they could shut up the critics of the 1.45% red shift in 2004? That must be it!

[magicarpet]

47. Russian trolls attempting to obfuscate reality and reason.

[L. Coyote]

49. Ha ha. Have you no sense of what the Russians are really doing? Or trump?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[malaise]

48. I would question the person who talked the most about rigging

Groper Don the Con

[VigilantG]

51. Listen to Trump's words

He repeatedly said the election was rigged.

Our individual filters, like Comey mentioned, form what we "hear".

How many times do we have to hear Trump project all of these things on others?

He is the guilty one...or in this case, the Republican Party feasibly paid for compliments of Putin.

And what about the 500 computers that Manafort supposedly paid $750,000 for? Did those computers remain in Russia for the paid trolls or for hacking, also?

[Turbineguy]

53. You would not want to hack those unless absolutely necessary

And it wasn't. The Russians knew the Democratic party plan, and bet on the self-destructiveness of the right wing voter, and they scooped the pool.

[LenaBaby61]

56. I can ONLY speak for myself ....

But there's no way that I'd ever believe that the election results were 'straight on' from the 2016 elections.

Secondly, tRumputin and co. have weakened voting how voting machines are maintained and kept up to date, and what we do know for sure is that our voting machines are old and can malfunction and are NOT well-maintained. Who knows what the ruskies are capable of as it relates to cyber-hacking?