Video shows GOP fake elector giving 'unauthorized access' to voting equipment(wabe.org)
wabe.org
Video shows GOP fake elector giving 'unauthorized access' to voting equipment
https://www.wabe.org/lawyers-seek-gop-fake-electors-data-in-georgia-election-equipment-breach/
201 comments
> We already have the majority of one party believing the last election as stolen despite a comprehensive lack of evidence.
This is the part that gets me. I don't know how anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see this behavior and then still support the people perpetrating it.
This is the part that gets me. I don't know how anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see this behavior and then still support the people perpetrating it.
When you don't understand them, that's how you know you're in a bubble. Try getting out and talking to them.
"So what has you so upset?"....."Comet Ping-pong pedo ring, contrails, Q, where we go one we go all, derrrrr"
Nope, coming in loud and clear, not a bubble problem.
Nope, coming in loud and clear, not a bubble problem.
Is that a conversation you had or a summary of what you’ve read about your political opponents on the internet?
[deleted]
ok, let's be real-
"Hi, what's the issue?" -Me
"I believe the 2020 election was stolen, I read it on X internet source plus foxnews has been reporting on it, and everyone I know says it" - Person
"Well how do you know they aren't lying?" - Me
"How do you know they aren't, I also trust my friends and family, read this random news article from suspicious site" - Person
"Do you think we should punish people who spread false information" -Me
"No, freedom of speech, also I still believe the 2020 election was stolen. If Democrats are just going to steal elections that means my vote doesn't count and I'm not really in a democracy, this justifies civil war" - Person
"Hi, what's the issue?" -Me
"I believe the 2020 election was stolen, I read it on X internet source plus foxnews has been reporting on it, and everyone I know says it" - Person
"Well how do you know they aren't lying?" - Me
"How do you know they aren't, I also trust my friends and family, read this random news article from suspicious site" - Person
"Do you think we should punish people who spread false information" -Me
"No, freedom of speech, also I still believe the 2020 election was stolen. If Democrats are just going to steal elections that means my vote doesn't count and I'm not really in a democracy, this justifies civil war" - Person
I think we all know the answer to this
I saw a woman say that Biden created SpaceX to capture the votes as they traveled through the satellites. They were then changed to Biden.
Now that I've heard this what greater understanding do I have?
But what you really mean is listen to their grievances and anger at being left behind economically. I'm aware of this but it doesn't justify destroying democracy with false accusations of election fraud.
Now that I've heard this what greater understanding do I have?
But what you really mean is listen to their grievances and anger at being left behind economically. I'm aware of this but it doesn't justify destroying democracy with false accusations of election fraud.
Considering high-level members of the Republican party and their supporters are following the cult QAnon, I think they're beyond convincing.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-is-trump-o...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-is-trump-o...
I've tried talking to election deniers; all I hear for supporting evidence is disproven conspiracy theories and what-about-ism.
douglasroth3(2)
Because they think the other side is already doing it, and having their side do it is just playing the game.
One side of the country has become convinced that democracy is not important. In fact, they see it as an impedance to their goals.
> In fact, they see it as an impedance to their goals.
Well, are they wrong?
Well, are they wrong?
Good point. But if democracy were not important, would they put so much work into undermining it?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: In order to obtain power? Hell yes!
I should note, lest anyone think I’m taking sides, that it is not overly difficult to follow US news closely enough to know that there are cheaters and creeps of all sorts trying to subvert elections and the law. It’s a rainbow of representation. All sorts of jerks are breaking and bending all sorts of laws and norms.
All y’all need an apolitical electoral commission, like Australia or Canada (and probably others) have. Heck, invite them over to run the next federal election.
Long answer: In order to obtain power? Hell yes!
I should note, lest anyone think I’m taking sides, that it is not overly difficult to follow US news closely enough to know that there are cheaters and creeps of all sorts trying to subvert elections and the law. It’s a rainbow of representation. All sorts of jerks are breaking and bending all sorts of laws and norms.
All y’all need an apolitical electoral commission, like Australia or Canada (and probably others) have. Heck, invite them over to run the next federal election.
You think both sides are equally at fault? how is that possible considering the number of people and actions on both political sides?
Did I say they are equally ar fault?
No. I said you can dig up scum of all stripes. Politicians, brain-washed groupies, social activists pro- and con-, the wilfully criminal who shed ethics for pay, and on and on. The problem is bigger than your myopic political bias, and its solution requires more than taking sides: it requires full prosecution of anyone engaged in unlawful shenanigans.
No. I said you can dig up scum of all stripes. Politicians, brain-washed groupies, social activists pro- and con-, the wilfully criminal who shed ethics for pay, and on and on. The problem is bigger than your myopic political bias, and its solution requires more than taking sides: it requires full prosecution of anyone engaged in unlawful shenanigans.
People on both sides are at fault. That does not imply "equally".
That's always the case, so you choose the best of the two options
This is not about choosing. It is about prosecuting. If one side commits more and worse crimes, they should get more prosecutions and stiffer sentences.
That would seem to make democracy pretty important, then.
There's two Americas happening when it comes to voting it seems. In one you have this sort of thing going on. In the other America, voting couldn't be more trivial. I have a 10 day window to show up at the polls if I really want the in person experience, and my ballot is mailed to me no matter what in the first place weeks before its due. I can drop it off in any ballot box or even a mailbox will do.
The big question is, would the outcomes even change with more access? Districts are highly manipulated to guarantee political outcomes no matter who votes, even in blue states this is true, at all levels of representative government. My extremely blue city council even gerrymanders their council districts to entrench political dynasties. Plus you have Prop 22 which has proved that an informed vote is not easy to come by among the public, and money buys policy.
The big question is, would the outcomes even change with more access? Districts are highly manipulated to guarantee political outcomes no matter who votes, even in blue states this is true, at all levels of representative government. My extremely blue city council even gerrymanders their council districts to entrench political dynasties. Plus you have Prop 22 which has proved that an informed vote is not easy to come by among the public, and money buys policy.
What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.
“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions"
In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop...
“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions"
In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop...
Easier access leads to higher turnout, which tends to help team blue, which is why team red works so hard to make it harder to vote. However, you're absolutely right that in many places, districts are so gerrymandered that turnout doesn't really make a difference.
In some places, state governments are preparing to ignore the results of popular votes entirely, but that only applies to the presidential election.
In some places, state governments are preparing to ignore the results of popular votes entirely, but that only applies to the presidential election.
> The big question is, would the outcomes even change with more access?
I'd suggest the efforts to reduce access - limiting early voting, dropboxes, etc. - imply the Republicans believe this to be the case.
I'd suggest the efforts to reduce access - limiting early voting, dropboxes, etc. - imply the Republicans believe this to be the case.
One theory could be that they had to do that initially to capture a state and have a power majority when redistricting comes up. Once its gerrymandered sufficiently, there is no way that they'd ever let it be uncaptured. You can let everyone vote but their vote is useless, if you've slivered the population into chunks that stymie voting power of blue votes against a swath of red voters. Ohio is already like this in many ways, blue cities held hostage by a state captured by the GOP. You have, e.g. the 9th district that takes a sliver of Cleveland and extends over 100 miles down a strip of rural coastline (1). This is the district that Dennis Kucinich (D) used to handily win until maps were remade by republicans and it extended out from Cleveland like the tentacle of a giant squid.
https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/why-ohios-congressio...
https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/why-ohios-congressio...
I would also add gerrymandering the voting district boundaries to the list of things eroding confidence in the election process.
The term gerrymandering, let alone the practice, goes back to 1812. No one alive lived in a time that it didn't exist or has even met anyone who did. It's an unsavory practice, but it's not some new thing contributing to the decline of trust in institutions.
That's assuming the scope and effects of gerrymandering, and that the public understanding of gerrymandering, remained constant, which is a big assumption.
You exist right now at a time when gerrymandering doesn't exist, for certain offices. Governors race for example.
And so you can see the difference it makes vs non-gerrymandered races. A big, big difference.
Yes; It's not uncommon for the gubernatorial race to be highly competitive in a state where one party has a solid lock on the state legislature, for example.
The last 20 or 30 years (i.e., the last 2 or 3 redistrictings) have seen the use of increasing amounts of data and computation to produce more accurately and more optimally gerrymandered districts. It's fundamentally the same practice that goes back to 1812, but the details actually matter in a quantitative sense.
>We already have the majority of one party believing the last election as stolen despite a comprehensive lack of evidence.
On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember the election in 2000 and still to this day there are people convinced that election was stolen despite evidence. In fact, were it not for 9/11 I'm sure the protests over that presidency never would have stopped.
I guess I shudder to think what would be required to unite this country again then..
On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember the election in 2000 and still to this day there are people convinced that election was stolen despite evidence. In fact, were it not for 9/11 I'm sure the protests over that presidency never would have stopped.
I guess I shudder to think what would be required to unite this country again then..
Strictly speaking, the Supreme Court did steal that by forbidding Florida to count any more ballots.
As much as I detested Bush, this isn't exactly accurate as it relates to the election being stolen. First, the suing parties only wanted to count ballots in the 4 counties they had the biggest advantage in, so it would have only generated more confusion and delays than recounting the entire state. Second, full recounts were later performed and in every recount he ended up with more votes than Gore.
You can't keep counting forever or you end up with nobody as president since Clinton was term-limited, and ultimately the decision turned out to be correct. So the people saying that election was stolen are just as much election deniers as the J6 crowd.
You can't keep counting forever or you end up with nobody as president since Clinton was term-limited, and ultimately the decision turned out to be correct. So the people saying that election was stolen are just as much election deniers as the J6 crowd.
There is no constitutional time limit on when election results have to be complete. They have very frequently in the past taken much longer. At the time of their ruling, the SC did not know how the final count would turn out. They did not want to know.
I.e., the majority on the SC was completely OK with the idea of having stolen the election.
I.e., the majority on the SC was completely OK with the idea of having stolen the election.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? The issue was the suing party only wanted to recount 4 counties that they had the biggest advantage in - what is a legitimate reason for that?
Also, there are limits base don when the electors are required to meet, and the President was term limited. There is no legal way for him to have remained in office beyond the expiration of his 2nd term.
Also, there are limits base don when the electors are required to meet, and the President was term limited. There is no legal way for him to have remained in office beyond the expiration of his 2nd term.
Can you guess how long it used to take to get the Kentucky results to DC?
The end of Clinton's term wasn't until well after (let me check my calendar) Jan. 6.
The party requesting a re-count was obliged to say which counties they wanted re-counted. Either side could buy re-counts anywhere they liked.
The end of Clinton's term wasn't until well after (let me check my calendar) Jan. 6.
The party requesting a re-count was obliged to say which counties they wanted re-counted. Either side could buy re-counts anywhere they liked.
You just said there was no deadline and then proceeded to give one of the deadlines. There are actually several, but that's just piling on.
The SC imposed its judgement long before Jan 6, and according to no deadline but their own impatience.
Which you already knew but seek to obscure. Why?
Which you already knew but seek to obscure. Why?
National mail in voting would solve some of these issues. No polls? No policing the polls or poll workers.
That does depend on honesty of unobservable USPS activity. So it's not obviously better. Even with USPS honest, people opening the envelopes need policing.
Well, it’s called mail in voting, but they actually have locations around town where you drive up and drop them into a locked box. There are also boxes set up at the library and other places. You can mail them in, but we feel better about dropping them into the box while out and about doing other things.
citilife(1)
linuxftw(1)
Yeah. I know. I’d almost just let Trump have another 4 years if we could just restore faith in democracy and see our elected officials compromise across the isle more. And for QAnon to never have happened. Too many folks with guns believe that nonsense.
> I’d almost just let Trump have another 4 years if we could just restore faith in democracy
Would that restore faith in democracy? Or would that demonstrate that if you yell loudly enough about the election being stolen, then it will be given to you no matter what.
Would that restore faith in democracy? Or would that demonstrate that if you yell loudly enough about the election being stolen, then it will be given to you no matter what.
I dunno. I think the man is as evil as everyone else does, but what are we to do I fear, Q anon and gun toting crazies more than I fear a grifter president.
> but what are we to do I fear, Q anon and gun toting crazies
What do you think the next election would be like if we let them override this one? How do you think they would behave?
What do you think the next election would be like if we let them override this one? How do you think they would behave?
You think more Trump would help? He’s the one who started pushing the stolen election idea before votes even started. He’s a danger to democracy.
> He’s the one who started pushing the stolen election idea before votes even started.
Omitted from your statement is that he first did this in 2016. He was prepping a "the election was stolen from me" claim at that time when it looked like he might lose, but when he ended up winning, he still claimed voter fraud had occurred. He said he would have won by more if NH hadn't been stolen by illegal immigrants who were sent via bus to cast fraudulent votes. He started a commission to find evidence of that, and it dissolved after it couldn't make any progress (because no such fraud existed). This was a footnote in 2017 many people have forgotten, but it presaged 2020.
Omitted from your statement is that he first did this in 2016. He was prepping a "the election was stolen from me" claim at that time when it looked like he might lose, but when he ended up winning, he still claimed voter fraud had occurred. He said he would have won by more if NH hadn't been stolen by illegal immigrants who were sent via bus to cast fraudulent votes. He started a commission to find evidence of that, and it dissolved after it couldn't make any progress (because no such fraud existed). This was a footnote in 2017 many people have forgotten, but it presaged 2020.
By your logic, Hillary Clinton is also a "danger to democracy".
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-electi...
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-electi...
The stolen election thing is very dumb, but people forget the same argument was made in 2016 with Russia “hacking the election” with no evidence found.
There is plenty of evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, to the point where it's impossible to say they did not with a straight face. Just because it wasn't directly "hacked" doesn't mean there was not overwhelming evidence of interference. But in the end, very few people considered that election "stolen".
If Russia can be said to have interfered in the 2016 election, a literal cabal (their words not mine) certainly ‘interfered’ in 2020.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
> They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction.
An information campaign and a disinformation campaign are hardly the same.
An information campaign and a disinformation campaign are hardly the same.
Domestic groups and individuals are expected to be involved in elections. Foreign ones, by law, are not. An obvious difference and I doubt you're unaware of it.
Providing voters with accurate information about how and where they can cast their ballot is not the same as buying ad space on Facebook to run ads with doctored images and outright false information.
> false information
Can we normalize just saying "lies" when things are lies?
Can we normalize just saying "lies" when things are lies?
The Intercept published an interesting (and, I suspect, related) article[1] today about the chamber of commerce no longer being the darling of the GOP. Retribution for not loyally supporting the big election lie, perhaps?
[1]https://theintercept.com/2022/09/19/house-republicans-chambe...
[1]https://theintercept.com/2022/09/19/house-republicans-chambe...
douglasroth3(2)
Not sure I'd say 'no evidence' at all. It wasn't "hacking" in a technical sense as much as "social media hacking" - bots, trolls, huge numbers of lies spread via memes, etc. Some (much?) of that was traced back to Russia, IIRC.
Attribution is notoriously hard. Also, general propaganda pretty much to be expected. It's the same thing in the last election, it's absolutely expected that some people did commit voting fraud and that some votes were counted wrong.
The big question is the scale of the operation and whether it impacted the results. It appears to me that the opinion people have is very related to how much they like the result.
The big question is the scale of the operation and whether it impacted the results. It appears to me that the opinion people have is very related to how much they like the result.
We investigated 'russia' election interference allegations. Some 'interference' was found, largely pushing down HRC and aiding (even if indirectly) Trump.
We investigated claims of 'stolen election' (Arizona, other states) and found marginally more votes for Biden in subsequent recounts. Even if that had been reversed, the numbers would have not have been impactful.
Other investigations in the last few years have turned up smatterings of 'voter fraud', and it usually seems to be Trump supporters voting fraudulently.
My opinion is that we've always had small bits of 'bad' votes (intentional or not), but with continued drumbeats on that topic, it's motivating some Trump supporters to commit fraud in an effort to try to balance out what they believe (wrongly) to be 'the other side' committing fraud.
I had a friend die on Election Day 2020. He'd cast an early ballot. I often think of him when we get these refrains of "dead people voting!!! it's fraud!!!". I do not know if his vote was counted or not (I assume it would have been) - this was in southeastern PA, so there may have been some recounts that removed ballots like that???
We investigated claims of 'stolen election' (Arizona, other states) and found marginally more votes for Biden in subsequent recounts. Even if that had been reversed, the numbers would have not have been impactful.
Other investigations in the last few years have turned up smatterings of 'voter fraud', and it usually seems to be Trump supporters voting fraudulently.
My opinion is that we've always had small bits of 'bad' votes (intentional or not), but with continued drumbeats on that topic, it's motivating some Trump supporters to commit fraud in an effort to try to balance out what they believe (wrongly) to be 'the other side' committing fraud.
I had a friend die on Election Day 2020. He'd cast an early ballot. I often think of him when we get these refrains of "dead people voting!!! it's fraud!!!". I do not know if his vote was counted or not (I assume it would have been) - this was in southeastern PA, so there may have been some recounts that removed ballots like that???
How can you say there was no evidence found of Russian interference in the 2016 election? There was, in fact, a startling amount of evidence uncovered and made public.
Can you provide citations? The claims which dominated mainstream coverage were not about hacking the election system itself but interference with things like social media campaigns or hacking the DNC’s email service to mine for PR dirt, which is by now well-documented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Please identify specific people and times for any claims - I’m sure you can find some nut on truthout.org claiming that the GRU hacked voting machines but that’s not the same as a lie becoming the most important GOP litmus test leading to a violent assault on the U.S. Congress trying to prevent the election process from being accurately completed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Please identify specific people and times for any claims - I’m sure you can find some nut on truthout.org claiming that the GRU hacked voting machines but that’s not the same as a lie becoming the most important GOP litmus test leading to a violent assault on the U.S. Congress trying to prevent the election process from being accurately completed.
Depends on what you mean by "hacking the election". Attempts to influence the election existed.
But that phrase specifically, I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
But that phrase specifically, I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
And the same argument was made over the 2000 elections against Diebold in Ohio and Florida.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy
That doesn't allege that hacking happened; it alleges (and demonstrates) that voting machines at the time were really shittily secured.
Not by major thought leaders or elected representatives. That was a popular conspiracy theory among the too-connected internet left. The problem in the modern world is that you have elected republicans and talking heads on FOX News saying the same thing to millions of believing partisans.
Nobody with real power suggested Russia actually hacked the 2016 election. Hilary Clinton conceded the election, and she certainly didn't send an army of crazed supporters to take over the capitol in a poor attempt to overturn the results. We didn't have Democratic governers and Attorneys General suing to overturn the results of their own elections.
In 2016, Russian hackers hacked both the DNC and GOP, and selectively released information collected from the DNC in order to hurt their ongoiong campaign. Russian actors also ran interference campaigns on social media. These are all established facts. They are also not allegations of fraud, simply pointing out that these actions quite possibly had an impact on the outcome of the election.
What Republicans have been claiming for almost two years now is that Democrats have committed outright election fraud. They have accused Democrats of everything from tampering with voting machines to ballot stuffing to throwing out Republican votes, and they make all of these accusations without a shred of evidence. Many Republicans in office today have taken the hard stance that Joe Biden was not elected President.
In 2016, Russian hackers hacked both the DNC and GOP, and selectively released information collected from the DNC in order to hurt their ongoiong campaign. Russian actors also ran interference campaigns on social media. These are all established facts. They are also not allegations of fraud, simply pointing out that these actions quite possibly had an impact on the outcome of the election.
What Republicans have been claiming for almost two years now is that Democrats have committed outright election fraud. They have accused Democrats of everything from tampering with voting machines to ballot stuffing to throwing out Republican votes, and they make all of these accusations without a shred of evidence. Many Republicans in office today have taken the hard stance that Joe Biden was not elected President.
> same argument was made in 2016
By who? A handful of internet nutjobs, surely. No one in a position of power or influence ever claimed that the election results were fraudulent in the sense that today's elected republicans are straight up claiming.
(What was claimed, and largely substantiated, was that one campaign appeared to be coordinating closely with Russian interests during the campaign. And indeed people were upset by that. But again, that's not a claim about the election.)
By who? A handful of internet nutjobs, surely. No one in a position of power or influence ever claimed that the election results were fraudulent in the sense that today's elected republicans are straight up claiming.
(What was claimed, and largely substantiated, was that one campaign appeared to be coordinating closely with Russian interests during the campaign. And indeed people were upset by that. But again, that's not a claim about the election.)
> By who? A handful of internet nutjobs, surely. No one in a position of power or influence ever claimed that the election results were fraudulent
This is 100% revisionist history, and a typical ploy to try to excuse bad behavior.
'Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
This is 100% revisionist history, and a typical ploy to try to excuse bad behavior.
'Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
The chutzpah. To project that OP is giving revisionist history, and then to dead-ass present an out-of-context[1], highly-edited quote mash-up as evidence. What a dick move.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32915502
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32915502
The full paragraph has a lot more nuance: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-rodham-clinton-trump-is...
> "No, it doesn't kill me because he knows he's an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used – from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did," she said.
("Hacking" here refers to the undisputed hacking of Democrats' internal emails, not the voting machines. https://apnews.com/article/technology-europe-russia-hacking-...)
> "No, it doesn't kill me because he knows he's an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used – from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did," she said.
("Hacking" here refers to the undisputed hacking of Democrats' internal emails, not the voting machines. https://apnews.com/article/technology-europe-russia-hacking-...)
I’m not sure it’s entirely undisputed. Some people think it was leaked by a Bernie supporter who worked for the DNC and wanted to expose them rigging the primaries against him.
In particular, WikiLeaks has always maintained that the DNC emails were leaked to them by an insider.
Hillary Clinton conceded and said she'd support Trump. Recommend watching her concession speech. Trump still hasn't conceded two years on.
I wasn't aware of the interview that the article you posted above covers. What she says is dumb, and dangerous, and damages norms, and she shouldn't have said that.
That said, you have to admit that what Trump has done is many orders of magnitude more serious than this. It's effectively the official position of the Republican party that Trump actually won the 2020 election and that Biden is not the rightful POTUS. That's wildly dangerous in a democracy.
I wasn't aware of the interview that the article you posted above covers. What she says is dumb, and dangerous, and damages norms, and she shouldn't have said that.
That said, you have to admit that what Trump has done is many orders of magnitude more serious than this. It's effectively the official position of the Republican party that Trump actually won the 2020 election and that Biden is not the rightful POTUS. That's wildly dangerous in a democracy.
She said this in 2019, after it was clear:
- Trump committed crimes in hiding campaign finance violations, for which he was an unindicted coconspirator, unindicted only because he was President. Funny how that works: commit crimes to become President and then become immune to prosecution for said crimes because you're President. We now know from Geoffrey Berman that Trump's political appointees in the DOJ leaned heavily on prosecutors to make that issue go away for Trump.
- His campaign met with a Russian spy to discuss an exchange of dirt on Clinton for relaxed Russian relations, and lied about it. Dirt came, and relations were indeed relaxed.
- The Trump campaign had over 100 contacts with Russia when Trump lied and said there were 0. Jeff Sessions lied about that under oath in front of Congress, and ended up having to recuse himself and appoint a Special Counsel because of it.
- That the biggest deal of Trump's life, Trump Tower Moscow, was in development when he said he had no business deals in Russia.
- Trump's campaign manager was meeting with a Russian intel operative, and it was later shown he was coordinating campaign strategy with him by exchanging internal campaign data.
- Russians had hacked the DNC and disseminated the data through wikileaks, and Trump promoted it as much as possible. The leak of that data was coordinated exactly with the publication of the Trump's serial sexual assault admission on the Access Hollywood tape.
- Trump made public statements directed at the Russian GRU to hack Clinton, which the GRU heeded.
- Trump fired the FBI director for investigating all of the above conduct (which was obstruction of justice), and then obstructed the subsequent special counsel investigation multiple times.
- Trump's AG Bill Bar lied about the contents of the Muller report to the public in his executive summary and then kept the actual report hidden, which turned out to be exceedingly damning, contrary to Barr's public statements.
I mean... if all of this was "legitimate", why did they lie constantly about it? 2016 was the dirtiest, most underhanded campaign in US history. That doesn't scream legitimacy to me.
I've been watching the show American Crime Story: Impeachment, and it just rings so hollow as to what offended people in the 90s compared to what happened in the Trump years.
- Trump committed crimes in hiding campaign finance violations, for which he was an unindicted coconspirator, unindicted only because he was President. Funny how that works: commit crimes to become President and then become immune to prosecution for said crimes because you're President. We now know from Geoffrey Berman that Trump's political appointees in the DOJ leaned heavily on prosecutors to make that issue go away for Trump.
- His campaign met with a Russian spy to discuss an exchange of dirt on Clinton for relaxed Russian relations, and lied about it. Dirt came, and relations were indeed relaxed.
- The Trump campaign had over 100 contacts with Russia when Trump lied and said there were 0. Jeff Sessions lied about that under oath in front of Congress, and ended up having to recuse himself and appoint a Special Counsel because of it.
- That the biggest deal of Trump's life, Trump Tower Moscow, was in development when he said he had no business deals in Russia.
- Trump's campaign manager was meeting with a Russian intel operative, and it was later shown he was coordinating campaign strategy with him by exchanging internal campaign data.
- Russians had hacked the DNC and disseminated the data through wikileaks, and Trump promoted it as much as possible. The leak of that data was coordinated exactly with the publication of the Trump's serial sexual assault admission on the Access Hollywood tape.
- Trump made public statements directed at the Russian GRU to hack Clinton, which the GRU heeded.
- Trump fired the FBI director for investigating all of the above conduct (which was obstruction of justice), and then obstructed the subsequent special counsel investigation multiple times.
- Trump's AG Bill Bar lied about the contents of the Muller report to the public in his executive summary and then kept the actual report hidden, which turned out to be exceedingly damning, contrary to Barr's public statements.
I mean... if all of this was "legitimate", why did they lie constantly about it? 2016 was the dirtiest, most underhanded campaign in US history. That doesn't scream legitimacy to me.
I've been watching the show American Crime Story: Impeachment, and it just rings so hollow as to what offended people in the 90s compared to what happened in the Trump years.
Mueller's report explicitly said that it found extensive interference by Russia, and that Trump and his team "expected to benefit" from it. The conversation wasn't about "hacking the election", it was about "collusion" in the run-up.
I admit I'm biased, but I don't remember this. I do remember concerns that Russia had interfered with the election, which is was found to be true (see Mueller report, Cambridge Analytica, etc.) There were also less well founded concerns that Trump himself was not only helped by but actually colluding with the Russians, which all evidence points to being false.
Most importantly, Hillary Clinton conceded the election the next day, as did Al Gore in 2000 once it was clear he didn't have a path to victory. Both pledged to support the victor. Trump hasn't done that, two years on.
Most importantly, Hillary Clinton conceded the election the next day, as did Al Gore in 2000 once it was clear he didn't have a path to victory. Both pledged to support the victor. Trump hasn't done that, two years on.
Yeah, Russiagate is QAnon for liberals.
Then how do you explain the Mueller report (authored by a Republican prosecutor, who was appointed by a Republican DAG, who was nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by a Republican majority Senate); and the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference (chaired by a Republican Senator with a majority of Republican members), both concluding that Russia, in fact, interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump; and that the Trump campaign, at best, passively welcomed this help, but at worst actually invited and facilitated it?
So, trying to keep this technical and not political (this is HN after all)...
Assuming these machines that were handled are decommissioned, is there a risk to future elections that use the same model of machine? I imagine there's significant security through obscurity. Do all models of this machine need to be decommissioned? We're taught that physical access to a machine should deem it compromised. But voters handle machines behind curtains every election. Does 4 hours unfettered access make things worse for the whole model?
Assuming these machines that were handled are decommissioned, is there a risk to future elections that use the same model of machine? I imagine there's significant security through obscurity. Do all models of this machine need to be decommissioned? We're taught that physical access to a machine should deem it compromised. But voters handle machines behind curtains every election. Does 4 hours unfettered access make things worse for the whole model?
Based on the ~2 days i spent hacking on them at defcon a few years ago, all of the current models should be taken out back and shot.
At my voting location in the last presidential election, we were given paper ballots to fill out (at tables with privacy dividers), and then we handed those to a poll worker who immediately fed it into the machine right in front of you (and everyone else).
I think that's a good low-tech way to have security, since random people never directly interact with the machine. The only outside input is the paper ballot, and it shouldn't be hard to write scanning software that's perfectly secure from malicious ballots.
The only remaining issue then is making sure the machine isn't tampered with before/after the events. You don't even need to trust the poll worker that feeds the ballot into the machine, since they're standing in plain view of everyone at all times, and under surveillance (I assume).
I think that's a good low-tech way to have security, since random people never directly interact with the machine. The only outside input is the paper ballot, and it shouldn't be hard to write scanning software that's perfectly secure from malicious ballots.
The only remaining issue then is making sure the machine isn't tampered with before/after the events. You don't even need to trust the poll worker that feeds the ballot into the machine, since they're standing in plain view of everyone at all times, and under surveillance (I assume).
At my (non-US) voting location, we put marked ballots into big plastic boxes. After the polls closed, the ballots were counted by volunteers, and the counting was supervised by other people to make sure it was done correctly.
Nobody had to worry about the boxes being tampered with, or about "unauthorized" people gaining access to them before or after the election, because they're just boxes.
If your election can be trusted only if only "authorized" people interact with voting equipment, then it can't be trusted at all. Obscurity has no place in elections.
Nobody had to worry about the boxes being tampered with, or about "unauthorized" people gaining access to them before or after the election, because they're just boxes.
If your election can be trusted only if only "authorized" people interact with voting equipment, then it can't be trusted at all. Obscurity has no place in elections.
The US is the largest (and greatest) democracy in the world - doing in-person counts won't work at all.
> and greatest
Let's get some basic universal healthcare in place like virtually every other first world country on the planet and then revisit this "greatest" descriptor.
Let's get some basic universal healthcare in place like virtually every other first world country on the planet and then revisit this "greatest" descriptor.
Is there an actual reason you assume that? You have similar voter turnout to Canada, with a corresponding increase in both votes to count, and people available to count them. Are your districts dramatically bigger? And is the delay in getting an answer worth a large swath of the population not trusting the results?
Signed bootloaders, machines that print ballots which can be independently reviewed. Maybe even unannounced audits by manufacturer or federal election officials would be useful (if there were some election mechanics standards that existed, I suppose). We should be able to make it so that even if the equipment is not monitored minute-by-minute we can still be confident
Former Travis county clerk Dana DeBeauvoir teamed up w UT profs [1] to make voting more secure. let's roll out some standards across the country.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-cle...
Former Travis county clerk Dana DeBeauvoir teamed up w UT profs [1] to make voting more secure. let's roll out some standards across the country.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-cle...
Why do we need to make elections more secure? Has there been any serious issues since the countries founding?
Not really, no, but this is about increasing confidence, not about dealing with threats that are actually likely.
The confidence was lost due to lies by right wing media and republicans.
So if I made an accusation of rape against another person with no evidence the police should watch that person more to increase the feeling of safety of the community?
What you are proposing legitimizes traitors and liars
What you are proposing legitimizes traitors and liars
[deleted]
Buried Lede: comparing sworn deposition to video evidence,
"Latham said that she went to her job as a high school teacher and stopped by the election office briefly that afternoon. But the video image shows her arriving at 11:37 a.m. while time stamps on other images show her there throughout much of the day. She also said she didn’t see specific people and saw others only briefly, but the video images show otherwise."
There are efforts in Georgia to establish paper ballots to make electronic tampering impossible. They could still stuff ballot boxes, but that takes physical work.
The first step in election fraud is always to accuse the other side of it. But real paper ballots are a thing anybody honest and competent supports.
"Latham said that she went to her job as a high school teacher and stopped by the election office briefly that afternoon. But the video image shows her arriving at 11:37 a.m. while time stamps on other images show her there throughout much of the day. She also said she didn’t see specific people and saw others only briefly, but the video images show otherwise."
There are efforts in Georgia to establish paper ballots to make electronic tampering impossible. They could still stuff ballot boxes, but that takes physical work.
The first step in election fraud is always to accuse the other side of it. But real paper ballots are a thing anybody honest and competent supports.
At this point I have become convinced every accusation is an admission
By that line of reasoning you are making an admission. You probably want to nuance your stance.
I haven't made an accusation in that comment.
Why use voting machines at all? Just stick to pen and paper.
People got upset that they were still counting at night or the count changed the next day. How would this help?
Misled techno-optimism mostly. A lot easier to secure a pen and paper election, but also a bit slower to count.
Here we have pen and paper and scanners. To vote you fill in the ballot with pen then stick it in the scanner on way out.
As long as they aren't stuffing more ballots or modifying existing ones it should be easy to do a recount at any time.
As long as they aren't stuffing more ballots or modifying existing ones it should be easy to do a recount at any time.
Stuffing should be hard: you get checked off (name and address) when you receive your ballot, and again when you deposit your ballot. Vote totals need to match in both those places and the ballot box.
I think it's not just techno-optimism. Profit motivated media wants faster results to keep people excited on the edge of their seat, eyeballs glued to the advertisements.
The best of both worlds is hand-marked paper ballots that are then counted by machine.
There's no reason to need the "best of both worlds." People will doubt the validity of the electronic count anyway, you might as well skip that step and go straight to a hand count.
The more counts the better, let a machine count first to give quick results, but use multiple machines and software solutions, kept fully airgaped. Then count by hand.
A tiny horror story from the last Norwegian election was when some results were delayed due to problems with a scanner. The news story about that machine mentioned that the machine was connected to the internet (shudder), and ran Win XP (facepalm).
The internet should only be used for reporting preliminary numbers, and the counting machines should not be talking directly to the net at all.
A tiny horror story from the last Norwegian election was when some results were delayed due to problems with a scanner. The news story about that machine mentioned that the machine was connected to the internet (shudder), and ran Win XP (facepalm).
The internet should only be used for reporting preliminary numbers, and the counting machines should not be talking directly to the net at all.
Massachusetts uses hand-marked printed paper forms that are fed into an optical-scanner, with the paper dropping into a lockbox for auditability. The paper is the vote, the scanner just allows you to count faster.
If you're blind or otherwise need assistance marking your form, you can bring along a person of your choosing or you can ask for two officials to help you out.
If you need accessibility and online voting, you're hosed: there's a system and it sucks.
Overall, there's room for improvement but it's better than all of the electronic-first systems.
If you're blind or otherwise need assistance marking your form, you can bring along a person of your choosing or you can ask for two officials to help you out.
If you need accessibility and online voting, you're hosed: there's a system and it sucks.
Overall, there's room for improvement but it's better than all of the electronic-first systems.
For anyone who might need to know: in the US you have an affirmative right under federal law to have someone of your choosing (although IIRC you may not choose your boss/employer) accompany you into the voting booth in order to assist you in casting your ballot. And assistance isn’t limited to people who are blind or have a disability that prevents them from being able to mark a ballot. If you struggle to read or if you struggle to understand how to fill out the ballot you have a right to get assistance.
Minnesota uses the scanning ballots too.
Very handy, ballots are tied to each machine for random validation and etc.
I like that system, best of both worlds.
Very handy, ballots are tied to each machine for random validation and etc.
I like that system, best of both worlds.
Anything less than an open source machine with a cryptographically secured, auditable trail from my vote to the final tally is 100% untrustworthy.
There is no reason for an American citizen today to trust the security of pen and paper elections. There never was, but now we have digital tooling.
There is no reason for an American citizen today to trust the security of pen and paper elections. There never was, but now we have digital tooling.
There's a small but significant advantage to some partys when using voting machines, just with touch screen being more likely to malfunction in humid/hot weather, which really is only an issue in poor districts lacking AC.
They are an entirely unnecessary risk. There are plenty of countries that manage to count elections a lot faster than the US while using only pen and paper. It provides a lot more transparency as observers can actually follow every single step of the entire process and verify everything. A voting machine is a big black box that you have to trust (unless they also have a paper trail, and you actually verify it).
> It provides a lot more transparency as observers can actually follow every single step of the entire process and verify everything.
Simple folk physics gives everyone an understanding of the security of ballot boxes. There's thousands of ballot boxes, each in a different physically-secured location, with various personnel keeping track of them, many of them citizen volunteers and workers, as well as partisan observers. Everyone intuitively understands the security, as well as security flaws, of this system.
All of that is lost with electronic voting. Even with complete confidence/faith in the system, it simply becomes a black box. Press button and the vote total is spit out. Only a few experts understand the system in a way that they could explain how that total was arrived at and why you should have confidence in it. And even fewer would be able to actually verify that the black box does what it says it does and that you should by confident in it. Otherwise it's just a box that spits out a number. And computers make up numbers all the time.
Simple folk physics gives everyone an understanding of the security of ballot boxes. There's thousands of ballot boxes, each in a different physically-secured location, with various personnel keeping track of them, many of them citizen volunteers and workers, as well as partisan observers. Everyone intuitively understands the security, as well as security flaws, of this system.
All of that is lost with electronic voting. Even with complete confidence/faith in the system, it simply becomes a black box. Press button and the vote total is spit out. Only a few experts understand the system in a way that they could explain how that total was arrived at and why you should have confidence in it. And even fewer would be able to actually verify that the black box does what it says it does and that you should by confident in it. Otherwise it's just a box that spits out a number. And computers make up numbers all the time.
Machines are mostly used to count votes. Ballots are still on paper.
Not every state has a paper trail for ballots. It should be required by law, but it's not.
That isn't universally true. Many counties in the US have used or still use touchscreen machines with no paper ballot.
You must be too young to remember the 2000 election. Butterfly ballots. Hanging chads. The threshold level of “filled” a Scantron circle must be to qualify as “a vote” vs merely an errant mark.
When one side is determined to scrutinize a large-scale process until it falls apart the process will inevitably breakdown.
When one side is determined to scrutinize a large-scale process until it falls apart the process will inevitably breakdown.
Not sure about your state but mine uses paper scantron with a scanner/lockbox. If there is a dispute/recount they verify the paper record against the digital record. The results at each poll site are ready 30-60 minutes after polls close. Rarely, if the results aren't ready by 9pm its usually because a long line at 7pm at that polling station.
The HAVA [1] legislation was extremely misguided and IMHO designed to create an industry where none was needed to line even more rich pockets.
Ostensibly it was done to support disabled (blind) folks to vote without anyone else seeing their ballot, but has introduced a massive potential for fraud (lack of paper ballots originally) and distrust (can you verify your vote?) in the process. MAGA just took that distrust and weaponized it.
[1] https://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx
Ostensibly it was done to support disabled (blind) folks to vote without anyone else seeing their ballot, but has introduced a massive potential for fraud (lack of paper ballots originally) and distrust (can you verify your vote?) in the process. MAGA just took that distrust and weaponized it.
[1] https://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx
> Why use voting machines at all?
IMO, for the same reason people are concerned about them...
France handles elections via paper and pen and has everything counted within 24 hrs. Somehow the U.S. had trouble even doing it in a week last election.
IMO, for the same reason people are concerned about them...
France handles elections via paper and pen and has everything counted within 24 hrs. Somehow the U.S. had trouble even doing it in a week last election.
the reason it took a while was mainly absentee ballots
It is important to present results as quickly as possible to prevent the sorts of fuckery Trump did. So voting machines with a paper trail and risk-limiting audits (basically randomized audits—the closer the result is the bigger the sample) are ideal
There's one very clear answer as to why we still use electronic voting machines: money[0]. States have to fund their own elections and machines are cheap. When you're choosing between a funding shortfall for schools, firehouses, or elections, it's really no surprise that the elections don't come out the winner.
[0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electi...
[0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electi...
Some possible advantages of voting machines:
- They can provide different accessibility assistance than pen and paper, allowing people to vote on their own. Multi-language support should be easy.
- They can provide UI improvements over paper. Consider situations where the voter needs to select up to 3 candidates out of a list of 12. Or a long ballot with lots of distinct questions.
- Hopefully less lead time for updates to the ballot if someone drops out of the race, is replaced, etc.
The past few times I've voted (Canada) it's been pencil on paper, stuck into a machine that confirmed it could read the ballot, then I left. When it's been a longer ballot for municipal election it's actually felt like a bit of a test. We are voting for: city councillor, mayor, regional representatives, multiple school board trustees from one of two different school boards (but not both).
- They can provide different accessibility assistance than pen and paper, allowing people to vote on their own. Multi-language support should be easy.
- They can provide UI improvements over paper. Consider situations where the voter needs to select up to 3 candidates out of a list of 12. Or a long ballot with lots of distinct questions.
- Hopefully less lead time for updates to the ballot if someone drops out of the race, is replaced, etc.
The past few times I've voted (Canada) it's been pencil on paper, stuck into a machine that confirmed it could read the ballot, then I left. When it's been a longer ballot for municipal election it's actually felt like a bit of a test. We are voting for: city councillor, mayor, regional representatives, multiple school board trustees from one of two different school boards (but not both).
OTOH you can get a paper ballot in any language an electronic ballot is served, and the UI is the same "fill in the bubble by the name" only its a virtual bubble you tap to fill. Disability wise it seems worse. You need to have access to some way to get to the polling site, the polling site has to be accessible itself for you, you need to be able to read the screen well and have a good finger to touch the buttons. Meanwhile if you are very disabled, you get a paper ballot mailed to you wherever you live, and your nurse/friend/pastor/whoever can help you fill out the ballot and sign off as having helped you fill it out.
I'm curious about how feasible it would be to two competing counting systems put side to side in each election such that the bulk of the agreements on a given ballot could be ignored and allow manual focus upon those ballots that are discrepant between the two systems.
what if one side benefits when less votes are counted?
I would think that would show up with a summary discrepancy of the count of the ballots. First you’d match overall ballot counts and drill into the specific ballots when disagreement is found. It should be a straightforward merge operation on the ballot ID where null values reveal a missing datapoint for a given row in the ballot.
Question for the internet:
Have vote tallies ever been intentionally run adversarially, as in you have partisans count votes and then they have to agree on the final tally?
Have vote tallies ever been intentionally run adversarially, as in you have partisans count votes and then they have to agree on the final tally?
That's essentially the current setup; both parties send election observers to precincts, who can challenge ballots. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/challenging-someone...
> In May, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported that a man challenged the voter eligibility of 13,000 voters in Forsyth County, Georgia. To reiterate: a single individual questioned the right to vote for around 8% of the registered voters in the county.
> In May, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported that a man challenged the voter eligibility of 13,000 voters in Forsyth County, Georgia. To reiterate: a single individual questioned the right to vote for around 8% of the registered voters in the county.
The correlation of "accuses other people of cheating" and "engaged in activity that looks like trying / preparing to cheat" is a bit too high in the GOP for my taste.
I find some of the "ideas" that the GOP might push somewhat appealing, but more often than not I find them distasteful as people and more often than not in reality betraying the ideas they claim to want to uphold.
Free markets, any sense of libertarianism ... all of it seems to actually be the opposite and a guise for "get mine", or "impose my religion", pick winners, and so on.
I find some of the "ideas" that the GOP might push somewhat appealing, but more often than not I find them distasteful as people and more often than not in reality betraying the ideas they claim to want to uphold.
Free markets, any sense of libertarianism ... all of it seems to actually be the opposite and a guise for "get mine", or "impose my religion", pick winners, and so on.
Reaganism is dead. Trumpism is the party now. It's an attractive ideology to the people is pretends to look after, and our elections are set up to empower the crazies in primaries.
citilife(1)
There is fraud in every aspect of life. Tax fraud, welfare fraud, credit card fraud, covid fraud, government grant fraud, charity fraud, bank fraud, etc etc etc… Yet every election is beyond reproach? I call bullshit.
We already have the majority of one party believing the last election as stolen despite a comprehensive lack of evidence. It won't take too many more people until a clear majority simply stop believing any election results are valid.